"The challenge to humanity is to adopt new ways of thinking,new ways of acting,new ways of organizingitself in society, in short, new ways of living."[3] UNESCO     "The intent of Consensus Democracy is to reformulate how local democracy operates in the 21st Century.... Only by recognizing the need for new ways of thinking about how we build the common good in a world of constant change can our democracy survive"[4]Consensus Democracy: A New Approach to 21st Century Governance     "Change your whole way of thinking, because the new order of the spirit is confronting and challenging you."[5]Millard Fuller, Founder of Habitat for Humanity, at 1996 UN Conference in Istanbul      "... we are, of course, refashioning the British constitution and our system of government, decentralizing power, reinventing government, promoting a new and different partnership between public and private sector. It is indeed as Al Gore has just said to us, a Third way,not all left nor new right, but a new centre and centre left governing philosophy for the future."[2]Transcript of a speech given by Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, at a breakfast with Vice President Gore

---

Strange new labels have begun to define our schools, workplaces, clinics and other institutions. We all hear them, but few understand them: OBE, STW, TQM, CGM, PDC, HMO, Third Way.... What do they really mean? How will they change our institutions and affect our lives?  Are they part of a local agenda or do they point to a global management system? Finally, the most important question, who defines the terms and sets the standards?  The answers are complex, but these true stories offer some simple views of the problem: 

• Thechurch:A Colorado mother told her pastor about her concern over multicultural curricula and sex ed programs that introduced her son to contrary values. But the pastor equated any criticism of public schools with "politics" and showed no sympathy. He explained that the church's new "mission" statement didn't include "political issues" which might offend people -- especially unbelievers, the potential members now viewed as "consumers" in the new church management system.[7]

• The workplace:  A Christian manager in an Illinois company lost his position because he refused to renounce the Biblical absolutes that formed the basis for his convictions. God's unchangingtruth didn't fit TQM (Total Quality Management), which demands "continual change." Contrary facts disturb the consensus process and God's values could offend team members who live by another standard.[6]

• Schools:A California teacher told seven-year old Sallie to stop talking with her friends about Jesus in order to "keep [church and state] apart." Her censure makes sense when we remember that the "outcomes" of UNESCO's worldwideOutcome-Based Education(OBE) system include politically correct attitudes. Sallie's loyalty to the Biblical God didn't fit the new standards.  Today's systemic transformation includes rewards for schools and teachers whose students demonstrate -- on the new student "assessments" -- that they have conformed to the beliefs and values of a global citizen. (See Don't Mention Jesusand Zero Tolerance For Non-Compliance)

We are in the midst of a global transformation, and few of us saw it coming. Silent and unseen half a century ago, this social revolution grew like a stream of water below the surface of our culture for decades. But now, at the dawn of the new millennium, the benign current has become a malignant torrent flooding the land. Too powerful to be ignored, it challenges us to respond before the old pathways and guideposts have been swept aside in its wake. Those who want to look back, can trace the silent triumphs of a diverse army of social "change agents" loosely linked by a common vision of a united world, social solidarityand a Global Spirituality. (Scan the Chronologyin Brave New Schools)Few books show the heartbeat of this movement better than The Aquarian Conspiracy, Marilyn Ferguson's 1980 bestseller:

"A leaderless but powerful network is working to bring about radical change in the United States. Its members have broken with certain key elements of Western thought.... This network is the  Aquarian Conspiracy.... Broader than reform, deeper than revolution, this benign conspiracy for a new human agenda has triggered the most rapid cultural realignment in history.... "The Aquarian Conspirators range across all levels of income and education, from the humblest to the highest. There are schoolteachers and office workers, famous scientists, government officials and lawmakers, artists and millionaires, taxi drivers and celebrities, leaders in medicine, education, law, psychology...."There are legions of conspirators. They are in corporations, universities and hospitals, on the faculties of public schools, in factories and doctors' offices, in state and federal agencies, on city councils and the White House staff, in state legislatures, in volunteer organizations, in virtually all arenas of policy-making in the country.... They have coalesced into small groups in every town and institution."[8]

It's true. Below the familiar structure of our communities, new rules and systems are paving the way for a transformation few Americans dare even consider. Behind the familiar words and seductive slogans lurk meanings, promises and visions only known in the inner circles. Those new words and meanings are vital to this revolution.  Carried by global information networks and planted among people everywhere, strategic new terms are taking root in the public consciousness and changing our thinking. You may have learned them -- words such as stakeholder, partnerships, facilitator, accountability, assessments[see Solidarity],win-win, empathy, synergy, consensus, continual or managed change....They are becoming familiar around the world.  Seemingly harmless, they provide the "seamless" framework for  managing and monitoring the global community.This revolution has three major but inseparable parts: 1. SYSTEMS:a global network of "seamless" management systemsor organizational frameworks that link all the pieces and manages the global transformation.  [See systems thinking]2. A mind-changing PROCESS:a standardized but flexible processthat conforms each human resource to his or her place in this vast network of global systems. 3. STANDARDS: a set of universal standardsthat holds all peopleaccountable, forcing them to adapt to the changing aims and needs of the system. Building a Global Framework

      "...the structure of democracy needs new scaffolding--a new concept of how decisions are made, a new approach to the role of leadership and new methods and techniques to build shared vision....      "It assumes that there is a need to rethink what it means to be a 'civil society' and that the concept of the "common good " must be more than an aggregation of individual rights...      "Any 21st Century approach to democracy will need a flexible frameworkin which diverse people can dialogue and not debate; in which systemic thinking replaces a linear project mentality...."  Consensus Democracy: A New Approach to 21st Century Governance

 Most house construction begins with a framework which outlines the main shape of the building. Other parts are fitted into this framework. Pieces that don't fit must be adapted or left out. The manager coordinates the gas, electrical, telephone and computer lines, not just within the building, but also with the various providers and regulatory agencies. Everything must be integrated. So must the systems that manage the world's natural, social and human resources. The basic framework for this global network has already been built, and more parts are being added with each month. The resources (including people and facts) that don't fit must be remediated, adapted or left out.This integrated network is well planned. "Citizenship for the next century is learning to live together," said Federico Mayor, former Director General of UNESCO during a day-long dialogue on Solidarity at the 1996 UN Conference on Human Settlements. "The 21st Century city will be a city of social solidarity.... We have to redefine the words... [and write a new] social contract." His words echoed those of former President Clinton and countless other change agents around the world."Cities are the vectors of social change and transformation," added Dr. Ismail Serageldin, Vice President of The World Bank. "Let's just make sure that social change and transformation are going in the right direction." [emphasis added]British Prime Minister Tony Blair put a nice, politically correct spin on this global management network and its intent:

"But our job is to help people with that change. Not to resist it, and so suffocate opportunity. But not just to let change happen, regardless of the consequence. Our approach, what I call the Third Way, is to manage that process of change to extend opportunity and prosperity for all. To find a way which provides for efficiency in the knowledge economy, and ensuring that everyone feels its benefit.... We have to democratize the new economy."[9]The Knowledge Economy  [emphasis added]

As Total Quality Management(TQM) reaches out -- far beyond the promise of quality products -- to manage human and social development, this transformation is almost certain to go "in the right direction."  If our national and global managers have their way, no one will escape the never-ending assessments, evaluations, corrections and demands for compliance with all kinds of standards.  In the more intrusive systems, their regulations will hold the minds and actions of every person accountable to international standards for mental health, citizenship and service, cooperation or compliance.... Individual thinkers won't fit.  Their quest for vocational success will be blocked by various gatekeepers: teachers, local workforce boards and literacy centers, universities.... These guardians of the new solidarity will measure and monitor compliance, shutting doors to economic benefits and social privileges to dissenters who disturb the new consensus.  Shaping the FutureManagement guru, Peter F. Drucker, offers a glimpse of this vision in The Shape of Things to Come. He writes,

"Allinstitutions, including governments, churches, universities, and so on, will become more interdependent, more market- and customer-driven. Today it is a world of infinite choices. With churches, it used to be that you were born into a denomination and stayed there. In the fast-growing pastoral churches, which are the most significant social development in this country, 90 percent of the members were not born into the denomination. So competition in all realms is acute."And yet there are new monopolies which we haven't yet taken into account. For example, we let one institution control access to careers and livelihood in a way no earlier society would have -- the college and university are major gatekeepers.That's why you have all those fights about admission." [10]

Those monopolies are fast falling into line. Teaching and testing the new way of thinking and understanding reality, they quickly sort the adaptable students from the uncompromising students. Those who conform are rewarded with good grades. Others will fail, and their lack of cooperation and understanding will be recorded in their personal, permanent data file for use by future employers.  Ponder this part of the "General Education Course Criteria" to be met by students at Fort Lewis Collegein Durango, Colorado. It shows the basic philosophy behind the new way of thinking: the systems thinkingthat sees all things as interconnected or holistic. Thisrequirementwould surely match the World Health Organization's standards for the right way of thinking:

"The overall goal of this area is for students to understand the complex interdependency of our world. All individuals are part of and impacted by multiple systems: family, cultural, economic, political, philosophical, technological, environmental, linguistic, educational, etc. These systemsare interdependent, overlapping, and each is in turn part of a larger system. Because of the resulting complex causality, decisions and actions taken locally may have far-reaching, even global, effects. Seemingly isolated events can often be explained only in terms of complex, wide-ranging causes. A non-systemic view can lead to dangerously simplistic and myopic explanations."Students will learn to employ multi-theoretical perspectives (systems thinking, systems perspective) and multiple methods of analysis. The intent is to teach 'ways' to think, not 'what' to think,and competing views of existing systems and institutions will be openly expressed and explored, along with competing alternatives to existing systems and institutions. Emphasis will be placed on the importance of various kinds of evidence in performing rigorous analysis and synthesis of issues and situations. [11][emphasis added]

The preferable types of "evidence" and sources will be selected by the professor or class facilitator, and the assaults on contrary data and the old logical ways of thinking will intimidate students who might otherwise voice their objections. If anyone dares take a contrary stand, their opinion will be ignored or synthesized into the pre-planned consensus through the dialectic process.  This is a "win-win" program for globalist visionaries and their quest for solidarity.(See Part 2: The Mind-Changing Process)Like Fort Lewis College, all the older systems must change in order to survive in this new world order. And the changes will be ongoing, for "continual change" is the nature of TQM. These evolving systems will be "customer-driven", but the managers who define the terms and write the rules would only provide options compatible with their vision and mission. Consider how such guidelines would limit the gospel in the new Purpose-Driven Churches. What will happen to solid Biblical teaching, when pastors and church leaders view unbelievers in the community, not believers in the church, as their main "customers"?  Gaining Control through Partnerships In a revealing 1997 editorial, The New Order of the Day, Frances Hesselbein, the president and CEO of the Drucker Foundation, and former chief executive of the Girl Scouts of the USA, gives an overview of the tangled webs of shared leadership we can expect in the future. Add the strings attached to government funding, and you see the framework needed for socialist controls over nearly all areas of human needs and services:  

"For the first time in recent history, government is saying it cannot, alone, provide the social services our people need. Business is saying it cannot deliver the services government is relinquishing, and the nonprofit/social sector is telling us it cannot single-handedly meet the societal needs being ceded to it by government and business."The meaning of this monumental change is clear: partnership, alliance, collaboration -- call it what you will -- is suddenly the order of the day. Alone, no one sector -- government, business, or social -- can meet the needs of family, children, and community. But together, in new kinds of equal partnerships, each addressing a specific need, we can begin to rebuild cohesive communities...."[12]

President Bush's Faith-Based Partnershipsfit right in. While promoted as a better means to serve the poor, they also provide the social links and associations needed to build those "new communities" of Solidarityand oneness touted by former President Clinton and  the United Nations.  For many years, our leaders have been constructing this new global management system -- more recently labeled the Global New Deal-- behind the backs of an unsuspecting public.  For example, back in 1996, the Drucker Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund hosted a two-day dialogue between a diverse group of people from public[professor, local and national politicians], private[author, CEO, corporate president]and nonprofit[theologian, chief executives of major voluntary organizations]institutions. This seemingly diverse group found "common ground" in their joint quest for "new and effective avenues of cooperation and change."[12]Like most facilitated consensus groups, they agreed on a basic crisis. They found "significant obstacles to cross-sector partnership."  One of the obstacle was the "differences in language and culture among the three sectors" which could "make simple communication, let alone genuine collaboration, difficult." [12]   This crisis was important. Social managers can't motivate the masses to invest time and resources in a planned solution unless the people perceive a crisis. In the absence of a genuine serious problem, an imagined or manufactured crisis might serve just as well. It provides the needed excuse for various pre-planned solutions. The standard UN solution to the above crisis is simply to bring everyone into the systemby involving allof them in the dialiectic (consensus) process. Each person would be trained in a group setting to think and speak the new language. In other words, everyone -- as President Clinton often said -- must "participate" in the integrated systems. And each system would have the technology to monitor all participants."Clearly," the Drucker-Rockefeller group concluded, "if we are to succeed in forging partnerships that will make a difference in society, we will be stronger for the involvement of allthe playerswho help build strong families, healthy children, good schools, decent neighborhoods, work that dignifies, and cohesive communities...."[12]Yet, they had some reservation. For example, the leaders and supporters must be carefully selected. Only those who were committed to pursue the new vision could serve on the leadership teams: 

"...do not necessarily have everybody participate from beginning to end. Teams work best with broad consensuson overall goals, well-defined roles, clear delegation, and flexible implementation."[12]

Universal ParticipationTheir message echoes the sentiments of a former master at social change and manipulation: Adolf Hitler. "The most striking success of a revolution," he wrote in Mein Kampf, "will always have been achieved when the new philosophy of life as far as possible has been taught to allmen, and if necessary, later forced upon them."[13]  But He told his followers to gather the leadership teams with caution: 

"...sift the human material it wins into two large groups: supporters and members.... A supporter of a movement is one who declares himself to be in agreement with its aims, a member is one who fights for them.... and corresponds only to the minority of men."[14]

The United Nations' master plan for implementing the envisioned statist management system is outlined in a manual for social change titled, The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide. It repeats the same basic message:"The proper selection of participants for the Stakeholder Group and its Working Groups is perhaps the most critical step in establishing a partnership planning process. The composition of the participants will determine...consensus for action.... Include... representatives of groups who are traditionally underrepresented" including "special groups of people (women, youth and indigenous people)... media, environmentalists...." But also consider "the inclusion of individuals with credibility...."[15]There is a reason for such selectivity. "Groups who are traditionally underrepresented" are less likely to appreciate our political system, Constitution, traditional values or academic education. Many would gladly trade the "free speech" for "free sex" -- especially since they now stand on the side of political correctness. Eventually, all social sectors must be involved in this quest for consensus. The Drucker Foundation's summary of the above dialogue emphasized that very point:

Twenty-eight leaders from around the country... reached remarkable consensusabout the need and the means to achieve effective social partnership.All recognized that the challenges facing government, business, nonprofit organizations, and society as a whole are too great to be addressed by any one sector. All leaders, to succeed, must build bridges. To provide a framework for such efforts, the group, acting as partners, delineated the following principles.... [16]

You can read theirlist of principles in Emerging Partnerships: New Ways in a New World. Each principle is cloaked in nice sentiment designed to inspire confidence and consensus but carries a subtle warning. One principle stated, "the three sectors of society have different needs and objectives, but must work together." The word "must"is important. It affirms the need to engage all the diverse elements of the community in the process. The planned system of overlapping controls demands total compliance and the absence of dissent. But with the news media's strategic silence and television's distracting thrills, the masses will hardly notice the changes. In the end, the master framework would integrate all systems, all partnerships, all knowledge, and all private, public and non-profit institutions. Every person would be socialized for their place in the massive global system. Each human resource would be continually assessed for the proper Mental Health. Everyone would be held accountable to global standards for every facet of life: beliefs, attitudes, values, health, practical safety, community service, and group participation.In addition, every citizen would be monitored for their conservation of energy, food and water -- or any other natural resource to be guarded by the elitist managers at the various pinnacles of these massive integrated or "seamless" systems.  [See total transformation] But in the midst of these radical changes, our God reigns. Three thousand years ago, His follower, King Jeshoshaphat, knew that well. So when overwhelming enemy forces threatened the nation, he turned for help to the God He loved. We would be wise to join in his prayer:

"O Lord God of our fathers, areYou not God in heaven, and do You notrule over all the kingdoms of the nations, and in Your hand istherenotpower and might, so that no one is able to withstand You?...O our God, will You not judge them? For we have no power against this great multitude that is coming against us; nor do we know what to do, but our eyes areupon You."  2 Chronicles 20:6-12

God answered his prayer in a wonderful way. He may show us a different kind of victory, for our times are different. To understand the consequences of our nation's shifting beliefs, see America's Spiritual Slide. But those who trust God's unchanging Word rather than man's changeable visions can count on this promise: 

"Be strong and of good courage; do not be afraid, nor be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go."  Joshua 1:9

---

 Next: Reinventing the World Part 2: The Mind-Changing Process

---

Endnotes: 1. Alvin and Heidi Toffler, Creating a New Civilization (Atlanta: Turner Publishing, 1994), page 19.2. Transcript of a speech given by the Prime Minister at a breakfast with Vice President Gore<www.britain-info.org/transatlantic/SearchResults.asp?link=-1&Article_ID=459&TableName=tblBIS_Articles>3. Our Creative Diversity, UNESCO, 1995, p.11.4. Consensus Democracy: A New Approach to 21st Century Governance<www.cpn.org/sections/tools/techniques/consensus_democracy.html>5. Spoken by Millard Fuller, a panelist at a day-long seminar on Solidarityat the UN Conference on Human Settlements (See The U.N. Plan For Global Control- The Habitat II Agenda)6.Reported by the manager who came to a Illinois meeting where Berit was speaking.7 Reported to Berit in a conversation with the mother.8. Marilyn Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy (Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, 1980), pages 23-24.9.  The Knowledge Economy. <www.britain-info.org/e-gov/SearchResults.asp?link=-1&Article_ID=436&TableName=tblBIS_Articles>10. Management guru, Peter F. Drucker, The Shape of Things to Come.  www.pfdf.org/leaderbooks/L2L/summer96/drucker.html11. Go to Fort Lewis College at <http://gened.fortlewis.edu/>. Click on General Education Course Criteria, then on <http://gened.fortlewis.edu/systemscritjan00.html>. A concerned student, who understandably prefers to remain anonymous, wrote, 

A new era of teaching and learning will begin at Fort Lewis College this fall with the introduction of the college's new and innovative general education program. The Fall 2001 freshman class will be the first to enroll under the new degree requirements, which took five years to develop in what faculty have called the "most extensive curriculum modification process ever undertaken." "Students will be exposed to ideas in courses that transcend any one discipline...." says Anthropology Professor Kathy Fine-Dare, who serves as chair of the college's General Education Council. "Our thematic studies courses within the general education program will help students understand the interconnectedness of knowledge. They will emerge from college with an integratedlearning experience, with the ability tothink criticallybeyond their majors," she said.Fort Lewis College began work to revitalize its general education program after a 1996 visit by a North Central Association accreditation teamfor the college's 10-year evaluation. The team criticized the college's old general distribution program, saying it lacked... clearly stated learning outcomes that could be assessed and incorporated into the college's planning.The newgeneral education program requires students to take... two thematic study courses in each of the four knowledge areas. Those knowledge areas include... Systems and Institutions. Students learn about the complexity and connectedness of political, social, economic, cultural and ecological systems and institutions that shape human beings.... Freshmen entering Fort Lewis in Fall 2001 will comply with the new requirements."

12.Frances Hesselbein, The New Order of the Day,< http://www.pfdf.org/leaderbooks/L2L/spring97/fh.html>13. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Cambridge: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1943), 582.14. Ibid., 581.15.The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide (Toronto: International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, 1996), p. 20-21, 2216. Emerging Partnerships: New Ways in a New World