It is reported that each year about 400 young Australians die as a result of heroin addiction. It is impossible to put a value on lives but that is certainly only a small part of the social havoc caused by illegal drugs in Australia.
So far as deaths are concerned we have also to accept that homo and heterosexual prostitution (carried out for the purpose of obtaining drug money) along with intravenous drug taking, have each played a considerable part in the spread of the AIDS disease. At the same time youthful suicides increase and accidents occur as a direct or indirect result of illegal drug use.
If we add in the huge crime bill attached to robberies, violence and other means of obtaining the millions needed to pay the drug trade; taxation for hospital services, community work and police, then the illegal drug problem can be seen to play an important part in the life of the nation and of every citizen.
Robert Karolis is father to two young children now entering our education system and is concerned by what he sees going on in the world around him. He works to discover what influences are active in our world and what these influences mean to the future well-being and security of his children.
A large part of this chapter will be based on Robert's findings and the Parents & Citizens Association of N.S.W. is used to illustrate how social organizations can be made to act in opposition to common social values.
Are parents and citizens led unknowingly to aid the drug addiction of their own children?
"It would be sheer arrogance to presume that parents do not have the best interests and welfare of their children at heart. But, as you will see, by manipulating the process of education and abusing the meaning of democracy, the result gives that appearance." Says Robert.
The first P & C meeting Robert attended provided evidence which had very frightening implications. It came in the form of the N.S.W. Federation guide called Reference Book For P & C Associations (1985). In this was something that seemed to me incredible.
Page 47 has this to say in relation to health policy:
(f) Drug Education:
(i) Drug education should become part of the present and proposed Personal Development Programs within the schools.
(ii) Drug education is ideally presented within the school situation under the following conditions:
- Where the teachers have received the fullest possible inservice training in the Personal Development field.
- Where the students receive their drug education program by a teacher known to them.
- Teachers should never give undue emphasis to, nor in any way underline the dangers of drugs.
- Educators should be particularly careful that they do not replace ignorance with bigotry.
NOTE: Teachers should never give undue emphasis to, nor in any way underline the dangers of drugs.
Very few P & C, or members of the general public, will know what this is about. Not many of those who attend P & C meetings seem aware that this recommendation is in their official Reference Book, or that it has been there for almost 10 years without public challenge.
It is assumed parents do not know that this instruction is in their reference book because it is difficult to imagine any parent of a school age child wanting that child taught about drugs if the point of the teaching is not to highlight the dangers of drugs.
Why, we may ask, would such an instruction be in the P & C Reference Book if it has not been put there at the direction of parents and citizens? Perhaps even more curious, why is it put there if it is not to be drawn to the meaningful attention of parents and citizens? What other use can it have? Also how is all this mixed up with health policy?
Readers may be shocked at what is revealed in this book but remember, the only way to defend ourselves is to find out what is happening and why. When we know the philosophy and plans of those who introduce such 'modern' innovation, and know that there are people who do not believe there is any social truth other than what they themselves desire, then we may also know that those who attack our culture feel quite justified to take any steps to defeat, or annihilate, all who oppose their beliefs and plans.
There seems only one reason for including that drugs instruction in the P & C Reference Book; the reason is so that if, at some point, the present education policy is opposed, then it can be claimed that educators are only providing what parents and citizens want, for (they will say) is it not a longstanding directive from the parents and citizens themselves?
It is difficult to believe subversive people can be so confident and open, but there is ample evidence in this book to show that beliefs are being introduced into our culture which undermine the long established defenses which guard the physical, moral and social well-being of children.
That P & C instruction makes Australian parent policy to mean children should be taught about drugs without the dangers being impressed upon them. In effect, we have a directive by parents to have their children encouraged in the use of drugs, for does not that all-pervasive social education program known as 'Personal Development' deliberately encourage experimentation and personal choice of all options available? Are not these teachings deliberately made void of all moral restraint? In those circumstances teaching children about drugs can only result in promotion of drugs.
(Note: drugs policy limits drugs teaching to teachers trained in 'Personal Development'; i.e. the art of enticing children to make their own decisions based on their own experience - or should we say INexperience.)
To be assured that he was not misreading or misunderstanding this recommendation Robert telephoned the Federation's General Secretary and was told that his interpretation was correct and, on voicing concern, was told that there were also others in disagreement but that these policies had been democratically incorporated.
What does 'democratically incorporated' mean? Briefly the system is that each of the 2000 P & C Associations affiliated with the N.S.W. Federation is entitled to send three delegates to annual conferences. At these conferences previously announced business, including policy, is put to the vote of delegates.
The General Secretary suggests that about 45% of affiliates attend conferences. Taking this as a guide would still mean that a small minority voted in favour of the new policy. This did not appear democratic so the question of who proposed the policy, how many people attended and how many people voted for and against became relevant. The General Secretary thought the policy would have been put forward by a school. As for figures he doubted their availability.
Robert's concern about the inclusion of such an approach to the drug problem in Federation policy was increased because he was unable to reconcile its clear meaning with what he believed to be the wishes of the majority of parents. In following this up Robert later spoke to the Information Officer.
The estimate of the Information Officer was that, at the most, two to three hundred delegates attend annual conferences out of a potential 6,000 and the number at each session of the three day conference may be much lower. From his experience, he understood the statements in question would have been drawn up by the executive and not proposed by a school.
At this point there was some resistance to Robert's enquiries and he was able to examine annual conference records only after obtaining written authority from his local P & C.
At first, despite assistance from the Information Officer, no record of this drug policy being discussed or voted on could be found in any year book. Robert was advised to contact the President of the Federation at the time and responsible for drug policy.
Information now discovered indicated that, aside from regional counselors, the conference was attended by 192 delegates. There was no record of how many members attended the particular session or how many voted for or against. The policy it seems was part of revolutionary changes proposed by the executive in 1976.
The Federation health policy also contains this:
(iii) These programs should include family development and sex education, starting in Pre-school and continuing through Primary and Secondary, integrated where possible into regular syllabi and carried out by informed and competent teachers, specially trained in Personal Development.
This family and sex policy (involving children as young as 2 years) went to annual conference in 1983. Once again put forward by the executive, it was not discussed or voted on at the annual conference but carried over to the next council meeting and adopted.
The ramifications of this contentious policy and the means whereby it becomes part of P & C policy, leaves room for concern. Those who promote this inclusion make a point of saying that 'Educators should be particularly careful that they do not replace ignorance with bigotry'. What can we say when what they propose is ignorance and the promotion of that ignorance seems itself almost certainly the result of bigotry.
How well this entire attitude to education, which seems supported so willingly by the P & C Federation executive, fits in with the whole kaleidoscope of child abuse revealed in these pages. A program clearly designed to restrict and mislead the developing mind into a preoccupation with sex and drugs, rebellion against family and a mindless pursuit of animal gratification. What chance has any child to develop a secure understanding of the real world in which it has very little experience other than the fantasy land of the TV image and the dreams of ideological fanatics?
The capitalist/socialist planners promote their humanist religion in education for one purpose only, to destroy our civilization and our ability to think and live as free people.
The humanists and Fabian socialists have effectively eliminated the voice of the majority and given direction and control to the active subversive minorities who want International Socialism. They have succeeded in this by putting the onus on the individual to give up leisure, attend meetings, become involved in protocol, academic arguments, technical details, etc. etc. in order to fight change which is neither publicized nor honestly explained.
We must remind ourselves that our sworn enemies have it as policy to infiltrate and take over every organization wherein they can obtain some benefit for their cause. If that benefit can be obtained without the knowledge of the membership then that makes it all the more effective.
While law enforcement agencies focus their attention on illegal drug pushers, is there a far more powerful, far more sinister form of drug pushing going on 'legally' under the direction and control of the highest authorities in the country?
Important questions must now be asked: Are the government Health and Education Departments engaged in a program of action deliberately designed to encourage the acceptance and use of dangerous drugs in our society; particularly amongst children? Is this campaign being carried out in the name of 'health and drug education'?
Many individuals involved in drug education may have been innocently drawn into the campaign by the genuine concern that must be shared by most of us. We trust 'authorities' and remain unaware of the catastrophic implications for the future of humanity. It is the manipulators behind the scenes who originate policy which avoids public opinion.
Regardless of where the directives originate, great responsibility must fall squarely on the shoulders of our authorities. They must be made accountable for their actions in using their positions of influence and trust in a way that gives aid to those who push drugs on our children and society.
We are all witness to dramatic reversals of attitude. In an elementary way 'fashion' has taught us how easy it is to condition attitudes to change. All it needs is to get a few sheep to head in a particular direction, add media publicity to convince a few more that they are heading in the right direction and the rest will follow as a matter of course. Permissiveness, illegitimacy, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, illegal drug use, were all social taboos 20 years ago.
Rationally motivated societies do not willfully change their lifestyles to ones that are known to be self-destructive. We have enough historical information to know much better.
Before it is too late we need to recognize that sudden reversals of attitude can be, and are being, socially engineered.
Drug education should be used to effectively deter children from using and experimenting with the dangerous drugs made so liberally available today.
The National Drug Education Program:
The National Drug Education Program appears nothing short of a social engineering program to condition people to change their attitude towards drugs from one of abstinence to one of use.
Like a kidnapper driving an unsuspecting victim to a secret location, the authorities have mastered the art of Orwellian 'doublethink' to confuse us into accepting that their concerns and plans of action are in our interests.
The following statement, published by the NSW Drug and Alcohol Authority and the Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol, gives an indication of the sly nature of authority planning:
"The NSW PACE Committee is unique to Australia. It represents an unusual government initiative to encourage the work of preventing drug problems in our community." (Emphasis added.)
Please note preventing drug problems not drug use. The same confidence trick is used in phrases like preventing drug abuse. By focussing on problems and abuse rather than use authorities develop programs that encourage what they call 'sensible use'. That is what they call 'a healthy attitude' to drugs.
Do our health and education authorities consider a drug problem to no longer exist if parents and citizens are educated to accept it as normal? If we are educated to a 'healthy attitude' (as for instance is the case with alcohol) will the drug problem cease to exist? Is that their idea of education to solve the drug problem?
There is no rationality in such reasoning. If common sense is not enough, we also know from experience of the less dangerous drugs, nicotine and alcohol, that attempts at education, coupled with public acceptance, have not solved the problems.
In the words of the Drug Education Subcommittee appointed by the Commonwealth Minister for Health (1984):
"The Subcommittee is charged with the development of a National Drug Education Program, which aims to assist all sections of the community and, in particular, young people, to develop healthy and discerning attitudes and behaviour to all drugs." (Emphasis added.)
The majority of children would normally abstain from drug taking but are encouraged not to do so as it becomes a social imperative - as with alcohol.
They tell us (Education Dept. Ideas for Drug and Alcohol Education for Students in Years 5-8): "..because programs that have chosen abstinence as their only goals have tended to fail, another goal should be considered; the goal of developing minimal and responsible drug use."
Since ancient times authorities have used various devices to justify their own course of action and deceive the public. They talk about a 'crack-down' on drug pushers but nothing changes; they say what people would like or expect to hear, while planning the opposite. Avoidance has no real place in the drug education program. What may seem even more remarkable is that a major emphasis of the program is to change 'bigoted' attitudes to attitudes which they call 'healthy and discerning'. (By 'bigoted' they mean attitudes opposed to general use of addictive drugs).
Recall the P & C Federation policy:
"Educators should be particularly careful that they do not replace ignorance with bigotry." (Emphasis added.) Such statements are framed in terms of Health Department and Education Department officialdom. It is no aberration and has the clear intent of labeling those opposed to unrestricted drug use as ignorant bigots.
We, normal people, are abused as bigots because we would underline the dangers of drugs. To prevent this they plot to change the attitudes of parents and citizens to accommodate what they call the 'educated' attitudes of children; (meaning the attitudes they educate into our children).
This can be readily discerned in official drug education programs. One such program - What Parents Need to Know About Drugs - was produced by the Health Unit of the Sydney Institute of Education (formerly Sydney Teachers College).
P & C Associations, employee organizations and church groups are encouraged by the Health Unit to organize groups of parents to become 'educated' about drugs. What is unknown by participants is that the program is not designed to inform them in such a way as to place them in a better position to prevent their children falling victim to illegal drug use. On the contrary it is designed to highlight the parents' own use of drugs i.e. alcohol, tobacco, analgesics, etc. By drawing attention to the fact that our culture accepts these drugs they attempt to create an analogy and general acceptance; if parents use drugs why not children?
Enticing Parents to Accept Drugs:
In an attempt to gauge what success the, What Parents Need to Know About Drugs program, is having on softening the bigoted attitude of participating parents, evaluation techniques were compiled by Peter Wheller in 1984. Classified as a pilot study impact evaluation and sold to educators by the Health Unit for $1.50, it describes two evaluation techniques.
From the first paragraph, Wheller's thesis indicates the program's preoccupation with the attitude of parents, i.e.:
"The program is intended to assist parents assess their own attitudes to drug use, interpret available information about drugs, and learn strategies for dealing with their children's drug using behaviour".
One could be forgiven for thinking that the last reference is to strategies for prevention of children's drug use. Not so; the focus of the program is on changing the bigoted attitude of parents to their children's drug use. Wheller goes on to say:
"Given that many parents have overly conservative and unrealistic views on drug taking, it was hoped that their attitudes would move some way towards the more realistic view held by health educators".
Wheller uses a scale (fig 1) to illustrate the gap between what he calls the 'realistic' (liberal) attitude of educators and the 'unrealistic' (conservative) attitude of parents and other community groups.
Each group is positioned according to its response towards 17 statements comprising evaluation instrument No. 2 (fig 2).
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
We, the targets of government drug education, can determine from the questionnaire:
(1) precisely what the authorities plan to condition the public to accept as 'healthy' or 'realistic' or 'liberal' attitudes to drugs;
(2) that the programs are designed to indoctrinate attitudes of acceptance of drug use being encouraged in children.
Participants are only awarded a point if they disagree with statements 1-8, agree with 9-12, disagree with 13-14, and agree with 15-17.
This questionnaire clearly reveals the attitude of our authorities. The program What Parents Need to Know About Drugs is shown to be about changing the attitude of parents to the use of drugs by their children and is not in any way about preventing drug use. The test is to see if the program is having 'the required effect' of making parents attitudes more 'liberal'.
Consider the two possible extremes: would anyone dispute that a person with a zero score is most opposed to drug use, whereas a person with full marks is not only lenient towards community drug use and experimentation, but is also prepared to take part? (Note item No. 12).
Since the stated objective of the education program is to increase the score of parents this can only mean that the program was purposefully designed to make parents' attitudes sympathetic towards the use of illegal drugs. And since this fact does not appear to be conveyed to participating parents prior to their deciding to take part in the program, the charge against the authorities of subversive manipulation can be fairly laid.
So it becomes quite clear, as the pieces fit together, that the underlined portion of the subcommittee's statement, to develop healthy and discerning attitudes and behaviour towards all drugs does not mean what a normal person would assume it to mean. But it does sound 'right' enough NOT to alert us to their true intentions and allows these authorities to spend vast sums of public money on teaching society to accept the use of drugs that warp minds and kill bodies.
Surely those who despair out of concern at the apparent 'inherent decadent nature of mankind' must recognize that, although man has the freewill to make choices, his rational capacity is limited by what he is led to believe. If we are not aware of manipulation we can be misled to base our attitudes and decisions on lies. People, it seems, are not naturally decadent but are made so by manipulation. Everyone wants to do the right thing, but we are deceived by those we trust.
Only when we have investigated sufficiently to appreciate the philosophy of the socialist/humanist educator can we understand what the 'values clarification', 'drug education' and similar 'new education' ideas are about.
To read material such as Ideas for Drug and Alcohol Education for Students in years 5-8, as presented by the Personal Development Unit, Directorate of Special Programs, N.S.W. Department of Education (1984) would lead the average reader to assume that whatever the value of the program the intent was good; however, to have this feeling of honest intent we have to be both ignorant of the philosophy and also ignorant about human nature.
To be ignorant of these things is, unfortunately, the norm, in fact it is difficult to be anything other than ignorant in relation to these matters because very few people have any opportunity for experience, or study, outside of the peer group, the classroom, the TV, the workplace and the general closed environment in which over 90% of people spend almost their entire lives. It is not difficult for those who do not want us to know, to keep information of a meaningful kind outside of that circle.
Where, by chance, a person has escaped the confines of his social segment, programs of the above nature can only leave a feeling of deep exasperation. We find some good ideas, like promoting individual decision-making, wrecked by the knowledge that the 'values clarification' or personal development programs, rely on group decision making and self-annihilation. Drug education is for, not against, drug use.
There is an old saying in advertising that, 'all advertising is good advertising'. Now we know that this is a generalization; all advertising, in all circumstances, does not promote use of the product but, as a generalization, it has stood the test of time. That fact is known by those people initiating programs if not by those encouraged to write secondary programs.
Educators are told not to teach about the dangers of drugs because (they say) the thrill seekers will be encouraged by this. Fair enough, but is that danger removed?
1. They will go on teaching about drugs.
2. They will not distinguish between legal and illegal drugs.
3. They will not teach the dangers of drugs even though the thrill- seeking part of this information is self-evident in the community. 4. They will blur the distinctions between those more dangerous and those less dangerous; 'non-discrimination' is the buzz-word. 5. They will tie this in with 'personal development' mumbo jumbo with its adolescent 'group decision making' and 'values clarification', wherein the children themselves have to decide on the desirability of drug-taking and to develop 'responsible' attitudes.
Now, when we add 2, 3 & 4 to 5, we immediately see that the children are supposed to make their value judgments in a vacuum; they have no worldly experience except the training of their parents and this values clarification seeks to neutralize. The children are not told, in a realistic way, of the dangers; this ensures they can only appreciate the glamorized, 'thrill seeking' image portrayed by the media. There is no distinction between legal and illegal, and the values clarification program itself excludes moral values as a matter of principle.
So we see there is a very clear interaction of Government Health and Education with citizens organizations to influence the common sense of parents. It is interesting to glance toward the USA where these childish appearing, but very carefully designed programs, mainly originate. Retrieved from PROBE June 1985:
"Malcolm Lawrence, co-ordinator of the Maryland Coalition of Concerned Parents on Privacy Rights in Public Schools, and one-time Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for International Narcotics Control, stated that one must have a prior knowledge of course content to determine whether it is drug education or a values clarification program...
"His view is that curriculum developers are having a hey-day making money by dreaming up these courses on issues where they have had no experience...
".. the idea that a class, through peer discussion, can decide whether or not certain drugs are bad, whether or not marijuana is harmful, is ridiculous. He states that children are being asked to become instant chemists, instant scientists, instant sociologists.
"He asserts: 'If it has been proved that certain drugs have harmful qualities, THAT'S IT! If they are bad for you, they are bad for you! Every 13 year-old child should not be required to re-invent the wheel on the harmful aspects of drugs'." (E.A.)
We see that this very experienced person has been shocked by, what he assumes is, the lack of experience of those writing these programs but has not realized the possibility that what appears childish may, in fact, be designed miseducation.
Back to Australia and again we must thank Jean Wallis and PROBE, compliments of Dan O'Donnell, former lecturer in Education. In an article, An Insight Into Modern Education, Mr. O'Donnell comments on a thesis by Delys Sargent:
"While parents traditionally safeguard and protect their children from unsavoury ... influences, Sargent short-circuits parental influence by the simple expedient of indoctrinating the classroom teacher...
"Freedom of choice she appears to reject out-of-hand. 'No longer can subcultures and small groups retain the stability of one set of normative sexual values,' she declares."
As we get to know the facts, we see that there is a close linking between the ideas of those given authority within Australian education, ideas forced into the American systems, and 'World Government-United Nations' programs.
The individual has no importance other than as a pawn to be manipulated in an ideological game.
They teach children that there is no truth and that they should reject the authority of parents, or governments, who would interfere in their lives, but the same people have no hesitation in forcing their own beliefs on the children or (as we shall see) using brainwashing techniques to establish their own authority; an authority which must be obeyed if the child is not to accept being an outcast to his peers and a rebel to his teachers.
They instill what they present as superior attitudes, while they attack genuinely superior attitudes on the grounds that 'all attitudes are equal'. They proclaim truths, while claiming truths do not exist and they exercise authority which they claim no person has a right to exercise. Truly they have a license to kill which seems to obey no law of rhyme or reason until we concede that destruction itself, is the purpose. aonc03.htm
