Insidious undertows in all the social infrastructures have been eroding the traditional family over the years, and now institutions within our establishment intend to separate children from parents at infancy: the signs are there for all to see who care to look. Proponents of such a plan exist within the scientific community, within the social services bureaucracies, our education system, many special interest groups, and human rights organizations. Reasons for supporting such an egregious and absurd plan vary from misguided socialistic ideology, nefarious selfish interests, to manipulative control over society, such as is envisioned by the UN, who is longing to fulfil their dream of a global society and a one-world-government under their control. Through their scheme OUR children will become THEIR "human capital," which they will mold into uniformly benign pieces that fit together to make up their Utopian, egalitarian society.

The pretext used by all the factions involved in this plot of institutionalized "kidnaping" is the same: quite simply, they say, it is in the best interests of the children, of the parents, of society, and the future of all mankind. They say parents have not been reliable nurturers or providers of adequate mental stimulus for optimum early childhood mind development. In other words, the establishment says, parents don't know how to best bring up their children, and the task must be turned over to the "experts" and their scientifically regulated, impersonal child-rearing institutions. That way, the state can inculcate its philosophy on future generations and the will of the state will become the will of the people, instead of the other way around.

The concept of the state raising the children is not new. It is a commonly accepted socialistic concept that leads to a homogenized, egalitarian society, without individual or collective conscience or moral fibre. Still, the advocates of such a destructive scheme are steadily gaining ground. Robert Muller, one-time Assistant Secretary General of the UN, proposed a "World Core Curriculum" (WCC). His philosophy is based on the teachings set forth in the books of Alice A. Bailey who was a leader in the Theosophical Society and a disciple of the Russian born Helena P. Blavatsky, who was a medium, and one of the founders of the Theosophical Society in the 1870s. Muller's WCC is acclaimed by UNESCO and UNICEF. The concept of Muller's teachings is to produce an egalitarian society, working cooperatively, in harmony, and without competition or strife--without individual thought or opinion. Most significantly, Muller looks to take away the student's early childhood and family influence--replace it with a "global family." He suggests that education of a child should start from birth and be oriented to the "macrocosm" and that early family influences somehow promote "an egocentric mind set" and will result in a negative or undesirable outcome (in other words, the traditional family must be abolished for the good of society).

An article explaining new findings on "how a child's brain develops and what it means for child care and education" appeared in the June 9, 1997 issue of "Time" magazine. That article helped to popularize the concept of institutionalized "child-rearing farms." It points out that we live in an age where "mothers and fathers are increasingly pressed for time.. ." and that the data in the study underscore "the importance of hands-on parenting . . . and to provide infants with stimulating experiences." And the article points out that child-development experts say "there is an urgent need for preschool programs designed to boost the brain power of youngsters born into impoverished rural and inner-city households." The article provides the ammunition for the next phase of the argument: that the state should take over and implement institutionalized child rearing and training from infancy.

Following along, right in line with the above article but independently, the Harris Government found it politically helpful to call for a study on early childhood learning. The report for the government, entitled "Early Years Study," co-chaired by Margaret McCain and J. Fraser Mustard was released in early 1999. Basically, the report stresses the importance of nurturing of the infant from birth, points out that parenting is not always adequate, and that "early child development and parenting centres" must be set up by the state. Although, ostensibly, well intentioned, the report in its recommendations leans heavily toward institutionalizing early childhood learning, and offers no viable alternatives for the natural parents on how to improve their role as nurturers. The report stresses that children must be stimulated and taught the right way long before they are six years old or they miss the boat and will never reach their potential. According to the report, the only solution is institutionalized "early childhood learning and parenting centres," presumably, where parents can drop off their babies for expert care and nurturing. Of course, these centres would be free and voluntary, but Dr. Mustard is optimistic that most parents would be "smart enough" to take advantage of such a deal for their precious offsprings. (A real honeypot: Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly.)

Meanwhile, back at the UN-- Elections Canada has fired a most devastating missile right into the heart of the struggling and beleaguered traditional family. In conjunction with UNICEF, Elections Canada has organized a "National Election for the Rights of Youth" in our schools: without consulting the provincial government, the school boards, or parents. On November 19, 1999 children between the age of 6 to 17 will vote their favourite choice of 10 rights as listed in the "Convention on the Rights of the Child." The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted on behalf of Canada by the Mulroney government: behind closed doors through Order in Council, without democratic vote, or House discussions. Now the UN has badgered or coerced Elections Canada to conduct this outrageously insulting phoney exercise in youth democracy without provincial government consent or parental approval. It is an egregious affront to parental authority and rights that must not go unchallenged.

Society has succumbed to the deadly sin of Sloth, and "Evil Prevails when Good Men do Nothing." We put our trust in the "experts." We conveniently let THEM assume OUR responsibilities. Now they are tempting us to trust them with our infants: they tell us that they know what's best for our children. We are tempted, through sloth, to hand over our children to the institutions that will turn our children into scientifically formulated drones. The UN's dream of an egalitarian global society is rapidly turning into the traditional family's worst nightmare. And we are all standing around-- helpless--like stupid herd animals, watching as the hyenas devour our young right before our eyes.

Jann Flury