Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (18)
Officially-encouraged child abuse involves greens’ lobbyists brainwashing primary and secondary-school kids. A leading lobbyist is Oxfam Australia, gearing up for a renewed assault this month on our idealistic and gullible schoolchildren.
Oxfam this Term 4 is pushing “Hunger Banquets” for kids — “a fun, eye-opening (and mouth-watering!) interactive and experiential learning event centred on the issue of global hunger: and particularly food insecurity resulting from climate change.”[1] Principals, teachers and their unions have put out the welcome mat[2] for Oxfam’s zealots and their green-drenched propaganda.[3] As Oxfam says, “The Hunger Banquets project is mapped to the Australian Curriculum (AC) cross-curricular priority of Sustainability. It is also accompanied by a whole heap of classroom resources, linked to AC Geography Yr 9, AC English Yrs 7-10, and AC Health.”
Oxfam Australia, the $110 million local arm of the global $A1.5 billion international charity behemoth, will “help you [teachers] bring social justice into the classroom.”
“Social justice” includes Oxfam exhorting kids’ pocket money into its own coffers:
“Hunger Banquet money box: Download our moneybox template if you’re asking Hunger Banquet participants for a gold coin donation or raising money for Oxfam’s work in other ways. Handy tip: Sticking your printout onto a manila folder or old cereal box will make your moneybox more sturdy.”
It matters not that half our kids’ parents are conservative voters. There is no push-back from conservative politicians: parents have to suck it up. Moreover, Oxfam is hardly the sole green-left-socialist indoctrinator with entrée to classrooms. Come on in, Greenpeace, plus the Australian Conservation Foundation, Youth Climate Coalition, GetUp, teams of Al Gore’s indoctrinators, the Australian Academy of Science, World Wildlife Fund, Cool Australia— each and every one promoting and cross-promoting[4] students with activist urgings. I asked a Liberal Party tactician what the party could do about all the brainwashed future greens voters emerging from high schools, and he said he had no idea.
Oxfam also throws its weight behind the cross-gender-promoting and Marxist-inspired Safe Schools indoctrination, mandated in Victoria by CFMEUpuppet premier, Dan Andrews. Oxfam says,
We are proud to stand in solidarity with, and state our support for, Safe Schools Coalition Australia … as an ally in working towards a world that is more just, peaceful, harmonious and fair.”
No kid is too young to escape the Oxfam net. Oxfam wants to saturate schools at class-, year- and whole-of-school level, pegging “hunger banquets” in particular to World Food Day , October 16.[5] Oxfam’s Hunger Banquets involve kids sorting themselves into high, medium and low-income groups, corresponding to global regions. Most kids get only a cup of rice and water for the lunch, but the small group of First Worlders win a tummy-filling three courses that includes Italian pasta. Point made. Except that the point is a bucketful of Oxfam bull faeces: “Hungry for a fair climate? Climate change is the single biggest threat in the global fight against hunger.”
The reality is that over the past 50 years of sharply rising CO2, the extra produce grown by farmers runs to roughly $US274 billion for wheat, $US182 billion for maize and $US579 billion for rice. The current value of the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect on all crops is about $140 billion a year. The proportion of yield increases due to CO2 increase is estimated at 51% for cotton, 15% for soybeans, 17% for wheat, and 9% for corn. (Goklany, p19).
Once kids are suitably conditioned by Oxfam’s heart-wrenching videos and dodgy “science”, the charity steers them towards directing email blitzes at local and senior politicians, plus us groupthink nostrums to “make this world hunger-free” and prevent governments and big businesses allowing climate change “to destroy the world we love”.
Oxfam exhorts kids to
- Email our political leaders telling them you’re looking for someone to step up and lead Australia on climate change.
- Get local for climate action! Get your friends together and visit your local Federal MP to talk climate.
- Join one of our local climate action teams.
Oxfam ramped up its anti-government campaigning among youngsters during the 2016 federal election campaign. Here’s a few Oxfam samples:
- “The Australian Government has been shirking responsibility and acting in the interests of the big dirty polluters.”
- “Our government is still failing the climate leadership test.”
- “But while the energy revolution gathers pace, the Australian Government remains stuck down the deep, dark coal mine of the past…Captured by an ailing coal industry and urged on by conservative commentators, our government has delivered a series of bizarre and misleading pronouncements about the future of coal.”
- “Dirty polluting companies are causing climate change to worsen, poisoning our clean air, and threatening our food, water and health.”
Earlier, it directed students to its “Take Action” page (link now obsolete):
“Tell the PM [Abbott at the time] to be the Australian leader we need. Demand he goes to New York and commits in person to the new UN #Global Goals for Sustainable Development.”
Take Action also says, below a caricature of Abbott holding an umbrella against a cyclone, and alongside a political petition (sorry, another obsolete link):
“So far, the Abbott Government has absolutely failed the climate leadership test. Email our political leaders now. Tell them you’re searching for someone to step up and lead Australia on climate..
Tell them that Australians want a bold and visionary government that’s prepared to make the right choice. For everyone, not just for polluting vested interests. Take action now!”
Oxfam Australia spends about $4.5 million a year on pushing green political causes and other “public policy and education programs”, including $2 million for “community education”. This propaganda include shutting down Australia’s coal industry and keeping cheap electricity out of reach of the Third World’s poor. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade doled out $29 million in taxpayer funds to Oxfam Australia last year (30% of Oxfam’s revenue), apparently unaware of Oxfam’s mission to kill our $40 billion a year coal-export industry.
Oxfam International’s plan for 2013-19, integrating the 17 national bodies, tilts the charity’s humanitarian work even more towards political agitation:
“The proposed ‘worldwide influencing network’ aims to drive our shared agenda more powerfully within the broader global movement for change…. It marks a trend towards working more on influencing authorities and the powerful, and less on delivering the services for which duty-bearers are responsible.”
Oxfam’s tax-exempt charity status requires it to be politically non-partisan. Rabidly anti-conservative Greenpeace in Canada was defrocked of its tax-exempt status by the Tax Office in 1989, partly because its timber-mill closing campaigns could drive people into poverty.[6] In New Zealand, the High Court in 2011 upheld Greenpeace’s 2010 loss of tax-exempt status, because of too great an involvement in politics and illegal activities, making charity work just a fringe activity. In the UK, Oxfam itself was warned by the Charities Commission about partisan political fusillades against the Conservative government’s austerity drive.[7] UK law requires tax-exempt charities to “remain neutral and should consider working with other parties to help ensure public perceptions of neutrality”. One Tory MP added, “This judgement should make all charities think very carefully about how the use the very generous donations by people when they are in ‘campaign mode’, rather than ‘poverty alleviation mode’.”
As if Oxfam Australia would ever give equal time to representatives of Australia’s 50% conservative-voting public. Indeed, its urgings of kids and others to do green-oriented email blitzes of politicians in the federal election run-up was cut from the same cloth that “appalled” Tory MPs in Westminster.
Our Charities Commission guidelines for tax-exempt status have grey areas in terms of permissible activism. They say that “promoting or opposing a political party or a candidate for political office” cannot be charitable (my emphasis), but that charities can still distribute information or engage in debate about the policies of political parties or candidates, “where these activities must be ways of achieving their charitable purposes.” It also lists a string of motherhood-style legitimate purposes, such as health and environmentalism, but adds, “If your organisation has non-charitable purposes and these do not further its charitable purposes, your organisation is unlikely to be registered as a charity.” In the recent election’s run-up the charities commissioner further defined legitimate advocacy, in did so in ways that suggest, certainly to me, to me that Oxfam’s anti-government rhetoric is borderline illegitimate. Why not let the ATO decide?
India’s federal government of Narendra Modi a year ago deregistered Greenpeace’s 300-staff operation and froze its bank accounts, accusing Greenpeace of sabotaging India’s power development. The courts overturned the ban in an ongoing saga that includes Modi’s de-funding of 9000 other charities.
In Australia, Oxfam’s schools campaigning is financed largely by donations from citizens who imagine the priorities, and their financial gidfs, are prioritised at ending the world’s hunger and want.[8] In fact, one in three Oxfam dollars leaks to fund-raising (20%) and administration (11%). At the top, CEO Helen Szoke was on a tax-concessioned $237,000 last year, significantly more than UK counterpart Mark Goldring ($A218,000 equivalent), who runs a six-times better-funded Oxfam organisation — $A700 million vs $A110m. (As a contrast to Oxfam Australia, the $US950 million Rotary Foundation charity has only an 3.5% admin costs and 7.3% fund-raising expenses, a leakage of only 11% from aid funds).
Apart from the government, our naïve banks and their staff have supported Oxfam only to get Oxfam’s smack in the face. ANZ for example put in $180,000 in 2012. Westpac in the three years to 2012 was a massive Oxfam donor, including $250,000 in 2011 for Pakistan flood relief. Soon after, Oxfam was accusing them of “backing companies that are kicking people off their land, destroying lives and leaving people homeless and hungry.” [9] The banks by now may have learnt not to finance their political foes.
Oxfam knows the world’s poor need more coal-fired electricity. As Federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan put it this week, coal is a critical energy source for developing countries that want to lift their people out of poverty: “If [Third Worlders] decide that the best way to improve the lives of their people is to build coal-fired power stations and provide cheap electricity, I don’t think we’re in a position to deny them that right.”
Oxfam’s international parent concedes the impact of its assault on the Third World’s poor:
“Poorer developing countries …will inevitably have to move [develop] more slowly, especially as fossil fuels can play an important role in immediate social and economic needs…Rich nations should support them with public funds.” (My emphasis).
Curiously, Oxfam Australia board member Ann Byrne is a member of the Compliance Committee of BlackRock Investment Management Australia Ltd. The US parent, according to The Guardian a year ago, led the list of asset management companies investing in top-50 listed coal companies ($US24.6 billion worth). BlackRock’s strategy was to go contrarian and invest in “beaten- up natural resources equities as a hedge if US dollar strength fades.” A naughty interpretation is that the green alliance (including Oxfam) beats down the coal industry. Meanwhile, BlackRock invests to cash in on the low coal prices.
Oxfam actually thinks stopping climate change, i.e. global warming, is the world’s number one priority for ending global hunger (much as President Obama thinks climate change is higher priority than ISIS terror.[10] ). Mains electricity, clean water and disease control, fertilizer, education, cheap two-way freight, land and investment security, open markets, women’s equality, freedom from official corruption — these are also-rans in the Oxfam narrative.
Of course, boosting food production requires the expansion of cheap coal-based electric power. Oxfam instead proffers costly and unreliable solar and wind. These power sources have already demonstrated their ability to wreck the South Australian economy, let alone the prospects of third-world peasants in grass huts.
Oxfam’s agenda is a 65% cut in Australian emissions below 2000 levels by 2030, and an economy-bankrupting zero-emissions target (including a 90% coal cut) well before 2050. Australia, Oxfam tells kids, must hand over $1.6 billion a year to Third World kleptocrats and UN corruptocrats as part of the first world’s $100 billion-a-year compensation for our past climatic vandalism.
Believe Oxfam and global warming is already devastating the land. “The warning bells are deafening. Take action now!” Oxfam says. “Smaller harvests mean farmers can’t feed their families or make a living. Even in Australia, climate change has affected the large-scale production of crops like wheat.” Pardon me, Oxfam, but don’t make stuff up. Australian wheat tonnages in the past decade have been around 24 million tonnes a year, far above the average of 1960-2000. (In the 1960s output was only 7-12 million tonnes).
“Climate change is already taking a heavy toll on poorer communities around the world,” says Oxfam, oddly since global warming has involved a mere 0.8degC in the past 100 years, a wholly beneficial emergence from the previous Little Ice Age to 1850. Global fertilisation by increased CO2 has boosted plant growth by an area equal to twice continental USA, greening the deserts, according to new satellite recordings.
Never letting a catastrophe go to waste, Oxfam’s Helen Szoke presents that Cyclone Pam, which hit Vanuatu in 2015, was one of climate change’s ‘devastating impacts’.
“What we can see here is the massive impact of climate change, erosion of sea into what was once land, the impact of the cyclone on areas of this village that are still to be cleared. Why should Vanuatans have to bear the brunt of climate change? Let’s do something and actually make a difference so climate change doesn’t continue to keep people in poverty and ruin their beautiful communities.”
The tide gauge at Port Vila has data for only 21 years, and this shows 25mm of sea rise, or a totally unalarming rate of 12cm (5 inches) per century, less than, say, Fremantle 1897-2010 (15.4cm or 6in). Szoke is making stuff up about these so-called “drowning islands”.[11]
I happened to be off a tourist boat in Vanuatu two year ago, pre-Cyclone Pam, and villagers showed us how, for generations, they have sheltered from similar cyclones inside the base of giant trees.
Similarly, Szoke denies the IPCC science that global warming does not cause extreme weather. The IPCC’s 2012 special report said warming may actually reduce extreme weather in the next 20-30 years.[12]
But Oxfam propaganda runs:
It’s not just the average temperature that is rising. [Satellites show insignificant atmospheric warming for almost two decades, and last year’s El Nino warm spike is reversing with startling rapidity]. With more heat and energy in the atmosphere and oceans, our weather is becoming more extreme and unpredictable. [As if weather was ever predictable, and extreme weather such as US land-falling cyclones have been on a decade-long low trend].
As leading satellite-monitoring scientist Dr Roy Spencer puts it, “There are no obvious changes in global hurricane activity, heat waves, or droughts, and no decrease in snow cover.” [13]
Oxfam shamelessly shoves at kids its music-enhanced videos of naïve Third World peasants parroting catastrophism. The kids feel the outrage, just as intended. For example, Oxfam quotes a struggling South African woman plot-tiller, a certain Yvette Abrahams, to push the worst-case IPCC scenario, which in her case will allegedly mean her tribal lands will get 4-6 degrees hotter. (The IPCC was actually talking year 2100).
“My family is meeting to discuss moving. We cannot stay… there will be nothing to feed our livestock soon. So the little [land] that we have managed to preserve through slavery, genocide, colonialism and apartheid, we are about to lose to climate change.”
Oxfam bleats that climate change will starve an extra 50 million people in 2050, with rising seas flooding another one billion. In 2009 Oxfam was fibbing to Melburnians via billboards near Flinders Street Station that climate change was creating 50 million climate refugees. By mid-2016 the actual claimants to official climate refugee status total one – Mr Ioane Teitiota from Kiribati, whose claims were debunked by the NZ courts and who was later exposed for domestic violence and assaults.[14]
I have no problem with snake-oil vendors revving up teenagers outside of school gates. That’s democracy. But allowing them to proselytise uncontradicted from state classroom podiums is a travesty of education.[15] Would reps from the Coal Association or the Institute of Public Affairs be equally welcome to harangue primary grades? (That’s a rhetorical question). Some say the horse has already bolted. As one blogger wrote to JoNova last year:
“I am somewhat despairing about what my grandchildren are reporting from school. Their talk is all about the horrors of European and English culture, about how we are destroying the earth through the climate and CO2, how we are to blame and it’s all about white privilege. When I attempt to counter some of it I get a disdainful, “the teachers wouldn’t be allowed to teach it if it wasn’t true.”
Kids might be more suspicious if they realised that teacher inflows now include the barely-literate and barely-numerate dregs of the tertiary cohorts. Of students with below-50 ATAR tertiary-admissions ranking[16] and entering primary and secondary education degrees, the proportion has almost doubled from 7.3% in 2013 to 14.3% in 2016. The Australian Council for Educational Research, blaming cash-cow-seeking university policies, says almost everyone who applies finds a place in a teacher education program.
Some rationalists despair that a mix of pro-and-con lobbyists to schools is now feasible. Instead, children should be taught logic, scientific method and the ability to see through propaganda from all areas of the spectrum. Given teacher standards, this may be whistling in the wind.
Hat-tips: Dennis Ambler, John McLean for help. My previous pieces on Oxfam are here, here and here.
Tony Thomas’s new book That’s Debatable – 60 Years in Print, is available from Connor Court
[1] Email to local registrants, Looking for an engaging simulation activity? 25/7/16.
[2] The other two cross-curriculum Trojan horses for Left propaganda are “Indigenes” and “Asia”.
[3] The 2013-14 Oxfam Australia annual report says more than 20,000 teachers used Oxfam resources to teach 100,000 students. And more than 6800 students in high schools and universities took part in 40 Oxfam workshops to help them become discussion leaders among their peers.
[4] Oxfam: “You can send student leaders to the fantastic Australian Youth Climate Council Summit, 17-18 August, Trades Hall in Melbourne.”
[5] These “hunger banquets” date back to Hollywood in 1991, when Dustin Hoffman, Whoopi Goldberg, Mel Gibson, Desmond Tutu et al skipped a meal.
[6] Revenue Canada’s charities division says that the Greenpeace Environmental Foundation can’t be considered a charity because its activities “have no public benefit.”
[7] Oxfam UK had close personnel links with high-ranking Labor figures. The tragically murdered Labor MP Jo Cox was earlier an Oxfam head of policy.
[8] Oxfam’s third-party fund-raisers cream off 90% or so from the first year of someone’s annual public donation.
[9] The Youth Climate Coalition smacked down its big-bank donors by campaigning against them on behalf of Bendigo Bank, which doesn’t lend to coal producers.
[10] Oxfam’s GROW campaign “identifies limiting climate change as the world’s number one priority if we are to end global hunger.”
[11] Szoke was previously Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner and Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner
[12] “ Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain. For projected changes by the end of the 21st century, either model uncertainty or uncertainties associated with emissions scenarios used becomes dominant, depending on the extreme.” P22-23
[13] A Guide to Understanding Global Temperature Data, July 2016. P21
[14] Oxfam Australia also claimed in 2009 that climate crises would harm 375m people by 2015, “threatening to overwhelm the world’s ability to respond”. Anyone notices these 375m?
[15] Meanwhile, NAPLAN literacy and numeracy levels in our schools stagnate
[16] Out of 100, the average ATAR rank is 70. Some student teachers are being admitted with scores of 30.
Morrison should gather taxes, not from those who have sought to make themselves independent through their own contributions to their own superannuation funds, but from all organisations like these who have played Australian taxpayers for suckers for years, while pushing their agendas with religious fervor and polluting the minds of future generations of Australians at the same time.
As for teachers – it will take generations to re-establish credibility for this lost profession.
A thoroughly comprehensive expose, but equally depressing.
Then again, AGW is credible: more so than the opposition to mainstream climatology, and all it finds and stands for, as mounted by vested interests.
For an alternative viewpoint, see the URL below.
It is appropriate to alert the young to this issue, IMHO, as in the likely event of the science being right, our grandchildren and their children will have to deal with the consequences, good and bad. Global warming has been (appropriately) called The Long Thaw by the climatologist David Archer, in his book of the same title.
Polar ice and alpine glaciers are melting, and the ocean is rising: according to satellite altimetry at 3.3 +/- 0.4 mm/yr (CSIRO). The safest assumption is that GHGs are responsible.
Of course, it is also possible that on the way to a steadily warming irreversible and unsalvageable hellhole of a planet, we will pass through a bountiful greenhouse, where tropical and garden plants can be grown at ever higher latitudes. But as we are in completely uncharted territory, I suggest that making a transition to safe and renewable energy should be a priority.
There is no book up there in the sky in which it is written that the future must inevitably be one of promise and abundance all round. Likewise there is little to be said for climate ostrichism, save as a very short-term coping strategy.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/02/environment-climate-change-records-broken-international-report#comment-80427316
Honestly, I wouldn’t believe anything printed in “The Guardian”. It has ‘agenda’ written all over it (and has a reading age of about 11). Many of your comments I mostly agree with BUT school is not the place for propaganda and, unfortunately, in my last years as a teacher the curriculum was saturated with propaganda. My son’s children are now victims of pc and marxist propaganda and he’s constantly complaining to the Principal, who disappears whenever he spots my son. I’ve told him we’ll contribute to their education in the private sector because the state system is discredited by leftist teachers.
I like your term “climate ostracism” but I also remember the river Thames completely froze in 1695 – the year of death of a favourite composer, Henry Purcell. So, yes, there has been a ‘long thaw’.
Just to reinforce the ‘reading age’ issue; here is a site with a very mature reading age (as a comparison to the juvenile status of “The Guardian”) just as you get here at “Quadrant”:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-moral-principled-case-against-the-named-person-scheme/18617
Jody:
Thanks for the link re the human rights issue. I am very critical of the Australian HRC, and regard it as an artificial way to keep an assortment of ex-politicians and rent-seekers well and truly attached to the teat of the Public Purse for as long as possible. However, I found it hard to understand, as I only have a reading age of 10 and a half. 😉
BUT:
Does that mean that, say, if the Guardian was to publish stuff extolling Newton’s laws of motion and classical physics, then you would be agin it all on principle?
As far as I am concerned, there is only one valid test of any proposition in science, philosophy or any other domain of knowledge: does it stand up to scrutiny? What are the arguments for and against, and based on what evidence?
I cannot name a single doctrine, religion, philosophy or whatever that I have ever taken on Authority, or abstained from critical examination of, or simply accepted because it made me feel good, or I wanted to be a member of the crowd supporting it.
So if some mystic comes out of a cave somewhere and says he was visited by the Angel Gabriel, or the Angel Moroni, or perhaps both of them together or seriatum, I would ask for a few more details before giving him/her support: qualified or otherwise.
And ‘en passant’ or whatever you name is: ditto.
An interesting article (your hyperlink) but replete with interesting oxymorons e.g. ‘today’s human-rights-based conservatism’. Perhaps one could replace this example with ‘the human-rights activism of the frenzied left’, or words to that effect. It is not unlike mentioning ‘The Spectator and The Guardian’ in the same sentence: a recipe for indigestion.
Ian,
Good to see you are back again, as blind to reality as ever. Anyone who takes the Guardian as their source is, well, nothing more need be said. It is also natural that you would hijack the detailed point Tony made about the propagandising of education into your broken record. Thank goodness that (in retrospect) I had wonderfully sceptical education. In my case, it was not until university that conformity and controlled thinking were expected. No doubt you did well at University.
Climate Change is ongoing and beneficial. Life proliferates in warm wet climates and the more CO2 the better. I have asked every pseudo-scientific charlatan to answer two questions:
1. What is the optimum average global temperature we seek? and
2. What is the optimum ppm of CO2 for the world?
A Nobel Prize awaits you, but an ad hom from you will do instead of an answer.
Tony,
I pick up one of my grandchildren once a week from primary school. It takes me an hour to get him home. It simply not enough time to deprogram him as he KNOWS that we are killing all the trees, oil and coal are bad, the world is running out of food and the beachfront property I just bought that is 1.5m above the maximum of a king high tide will be under 10m of water when he inherits it (photos available on request). He finds it hard to believe that none of what he has been told is true. One day they will teach him to read and write as I have some good books he will never see in school.
I have not donated $1 to any charity since I completed a pro bono consultancy to one in 1993. They lived well and the Clinton Kleptocrat’s could have learned from them.
ep: Please enlighten us, or at least me. What do you understand ad hom to mean?
I ask this because where I come from ad hominem means attacking the arguer, not the argument. But it is not uncommon for people to have different understandings and nuances.
If you think I have ever done it, please give me one instance of where and when.
Ian,
I did not say you had done ‘it’. What I said was that you would have to resort to something, anything rather than answer the questions I posed.
Enlighten the world as the the ideal level of CO2 and the optimum average temperature, please.
I’m afraid it’s not just Oxfam – it’s the whole curriculum.
I spent a parent/teacher night at my daughter’s school complaining about their ‘geography’ assignment that asks students to devise a protest/campaign on: why indigenous people need self determination, or why human rights are so important, or why land degradation (through mining etc.) is so awful.
The teacher actually tried to argue that both sides of the argument would be heard – until I showed her the actual paper that demands all perspectives be of the negative (Green Left) position.
It’s over. The entire syllabus is infected. Schools are being visited by Indigenous activists calling Australia Day Invasion Day, the kids are taught coal mining is evil, that Climate Change will kill them, and that being homosexual is a better lifestyle.
gray_rm:
This gives your grandchildren an excellent opportunity to learn a bit about critical thinking. Examine the teacher’s case, and give an alternative: telling them to examine both sides, take nothing on Authority, make up their own minds, and be prepared to change them if better evidence or arguments appear.
Coal mining is not evil: we need the coal reserves for road tar, and there is no cost-effective substitute in sight. But burning coal for energy is problematic.
Australia was invaded: no other word for it. And the poor bloody invadees had no way to stop it. Lesson: ?
Why is homosexuality a better lifestyle? Is the heterosexual majority wrong?
And what comes next after same-sex marriage? Polygamy (perhaps for Muslims only?)
Etc.
“The entire syllabus is infected. Schools are being visited by Indigenous activists calling Australia Day Invasion Day, the kids are taught coal mining is evil, that Climate Change will kill them, and that being homosexual is a better lifestyle.”
This is exactly the truth, gray-rm, Teachers in Primary schools have a narrow mono-political view of the world… and interestingly, Primary teachers are also single gendered- as in, over ninety percent are female. There also seems to be a significant and activist Gay lobby amongst Primary school teachers … in fact amongst secondary and tertiary teachers as well. So the entire life cycle has become entrenched … we have bigoted teachers who have been created by bigoted teachers – who have gone from school to university and back to school again having never experienced any life outside their protected bubble. … and it’s at least worth mentioning … they are ninety percent women with a ‘family friendly’ job that allows them to pick the kids up from school and work only 0.2 or 0.4 or 0.8 each week…. and our children, who are required to learn this syllabus full of lies … will only get to University if they are prepared to repeat the lies in their exams.
CLIMATE OSTRICHISM
“But as we are in completely uncharted territory, I suggest that making a transition to safe and renewable energy should be a priority… Likewise there is little to be said for climate ostrichism, save as a very short-term coping strategy.” (Ian MacDougall)
Another example of “climate ostrichism” appears at the end of a recent paper from the orthodoxy:
“Unfortunately determining the equilibrium GHG concentrations compatible with any prescribed warming levels, either globally or over land, remains difficult. This is due to large model differences in estimates of planetary climate sensitivity.”
Note “model differences” NOT actual physical measurements.
We are indeed in “completely uncharted territory”.
Reference:
Chris Huntingford, Lina M. Mercado. High chance that current atmospheric greenhouse concentrations commit to warmings greater than 1.5 °C over land.Scientific Reports, 2016; 6: 30294 DOI: 10.1038/srep30294
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/07/is-that-news-new-science-paper-tells-us-air-over-land-heats-more-than-water/#comment-18224
Why would anyone want a university degree. Many graduates cannot get work in their degree field.
I met a 23 year old With a degree in GameDesign’.
He was working forth edible in a Vinnies shop. I bought some second hand tables for my business. He complimented me on recycling and my environmental awareness.
I pointed out the tables were manufactured where coal was the foundation of energy, where Marxist dogma allieed cheap wages and there was little environment protection and few regulations covering employment wh&s and a myriad of other aspects.
He asked me where that was.
My answer stunned him into silence.
When I said China and that if I had the energy I’d probably head overseas with my manufacturing as well. This would lead to me paying less wages taxes and levies and would probably lead to his standard of living falling to the levels of the third world.
It is obscene that State Governments (and Catholic and Private Schools) allow their schools to be used for brain washing and fund raising for activist groups. There should be a core curriculum covering subjects needed to obtain employment after leaving school and cultural subjects such as history and geography etc that are presented in an objective manner. I agree with the article and the comments. Back in 2014 I wrote the following to someone who had an interest in modern education.
As a grandparent who takes an active interest in my grandkids education at a State Primary School I can give you some examples of such experiences.
– The other day I saw a news item on SBS which showed an employee of the Red Cross introducing a program into schools in WA to educate schoolchildren into supporting asylum seekers.
– Another grandparent told me how he went to the end of year concert for his grandchild where the headmistress proudly told the audience how her school had raised funds for Greenpeace.
– A few weeks back I was in Sydney when an eleven year old granddaughter was doing her homework on the computer. I asked if I could have a look and was surprised to see that her teacher had set her homework out of an ABC internet program called Reading Eggspress that required a password and other details. She was doing an essay on gold mining and the ABC crib notes told her basically that mining was evil.
– My old school produces an annual magazine for its “old boys”. In the 2011 edition they had articles dealing with aspects of their curricula. One part of the program dealt with “social justice” which involved the boys in doing volunteer work and being involved in community groups, as well as looking at moral issues such as homelessness and COAL SEAM GAS!?
The prime educators of children are their parents. They contract out to schools the subjects that require technical and some traditional input that help the children to think critically. Morality and social and political views are the preserve of the adult family members, not neo-Marxist totalitarians who believe that families are not capable of “thinking correctly” and hence must be undermined by the views of these arrogant ‘superior’ beings.
Reader Davyd comments:
Tony, I’m amazed that a Lib party operator had ‘no idea’ what to do about Green indoctrination…No idea!? And that’s from a politician (of sorts). Kidding, right?
Here’s what you do: learning kits on coal, uranium, its benefits to the poor and to building wealth (with which good can be done), lifting the lid: a series of learning resources on the truth about wind power, sun power, and so on; resources for holiday activity clubs: building a small coal generator plant, holiday seminars for senior high school students on same topics; and world hunger, the scourge of socialist centralism, all mapped to the curriculum, of course;
Set up “Rescue Clubs” at schools to discuss how to really save the world, and action kids can take (free market, conservative, freedom values).
Sponsor essay competitions, website competitions, debates, public speaking contests, film contests…man, the list is endless