Many were shocked at my recent article entitled Psychological Attacks Coming To A Primary School Near You, but it is now abundantly clear that there is an agenda to stage events and only reveal them as hoaxes hours or even days later, after the children have been left traumatized.

Alien Invasion

The first form of attack is the Alien Invasion scenario that entails a UFO landing in the school. The teacher reacts as if it’s real and takes the children (some obviously scared) out to investigate, where they’ll sometimes see one teacher being dragged away by aliens. This has full support of the local establishment and police sometimes offer flashing lights to add to its realism.

The organization behind this scenario is the “National Literacy Trust – transforming lives“. Yes, they are transforming children’s lives, by psychologically traumatizing them.

The official line is that the Alien Invasion is as way to peak student’s creative writing skills. That’s all well an good, but why are they led to believe the event is real?

This organization is a privately run charity, outside of the government and national curriculum; basically a lobby group, which should raise alarm bells right away. If you’re not familiar with the work of Brian Gerrish and the general move the country is making towards giving power to private companies and charities you should definitely do some research; it’s the core of Cameron’s Big Society.

Amanda Jordan is the chairperson (lets be politically correct now) of the NLT. Here’s her public profile:

As well as chairing the NLT’s Board, Amanda is joint Chair of Corporate Citizenship formerly known as The SMART Company, which she founded in 2001 after a successful career spanning the voluntary and private sectors. In the 1990s she spent 10 years developing and managing an award-winning CSR programme for NatWest. She was also an Adviser to the Social Exclusion Unit in the Cabinet Office and a Non-Executive Director of the ODPM.

Amanda’s interest in responsible business behaviour extends into the field of self-regulation. She currently chairs a working party for DCSF on regulating internet content and has also been a Non-Executive Director of the Banking Code Standards Board.

The above profile is all rather fluffy if you buy in to the newspeak rhetoric, but lets breakdown essentially what this leftist does. She is chair of “Corporate Citizenship” another private nothing with clients as broad as ExxonMobil and Cadbury Chocolate. Their role is to essentially help big companies appear more humanist and loving, and mold them to the ideals of the extreme left. “We believe our clients will achieve greater, longterm, sustainable success if they are also creating beneficial change for business and society.” And of course there’s always this emphasis on CHANGE….companies and charities using their power to change society….to change young people’s minds? Why are private quangos and companies being given the authority to change society?

Of course, they are also steeped in this trumped up climate change revolution. Aren’t they all?

Next of course she worked NatWest Bank. Any time you hear bank…run a mile. Now to be fair her role was to create a “Corporate Social Responsibility Program”, but as far as the general public are concerned, it didn’t work did it Amanda? If the banks had any mind for social responsibility they wouldn’t lend out 10 times more than they have on deposits and expect the imaginary amount back with interest, they wouldn’t open up unauthorized overdrafts to pay for bills that aren’t theirs to pay, they wouldn’t be giving the crooks that caused the economic crash record bonuses while the rest of the public bail them out.

No Amanda’s role was to create those little condescending leaflets asking you if you need help with debt, to make sure PR pieces are sent out saying how the bank loves to help the environment, when they’ll be the ones ones profiting from carbon trading; and to make sure there’s adequate customer service…..based out of India.

Also lets not forget Amanda’s lust for “self-regulation”, which basically means give all the power to the private sector to regulate themselves. Just like Obama and Brown’s doublethink agenda to give more power to the banks in order to prevent future crashes. Huh? What!?

She was also part of this all loving and caring government Social Exclusion Unit. Because of course we can’t have mavericks bucking the system and doing their own thing. We can’t have children that prefer their own company rather than that of the “hive”. Heaven forbid they are anti-social!….We must get all the mentally ill and physically disabled back in to work, those dirty scroungers, we must make them see that they can still contribute to our great society!

Ohhh Amanda. She also wants to regulate internet content from all of those nasty cyber-bullies. Yes that’s what she wants, but in turn it allows Peter Mandelson, David Geffen and the Rothschilds to curtail free speech.

The next board member of the NLT is Robert Lee Smith, who worked for nearly 20 years at the Department for Education. Thanks mate! Keep telling the kids that Hitler was a lone nut and that the EU is wonderful for the country, good job!

During that period he took a leading part in the establishment of the cross-cutting Sure Start and Connexions programmes.

You mean that useless group that somehow knows every kid in the UK’s mobile phone number and address, bugs them until they have a meeting, then spurts out a suitable job they’d be good at because a checklist and a windows 95 PC said so?

The group that thinks preparing kids for exams is giving them questions written in groovy text language cos dats ow d kidz speek deese days!

The next Trustee is Kamini Gadhok, a Chief Executive of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.

Well that sounds alright?

Not exactly, her role is to “help deliver service change by building strong partnerships with key stakeholders across government, charities, other professional bodies and the regulator.”

She’s a middleman helping to subvert regular democratic chains of command.

Then there’s Gail Rebuck, Chief Executive of The Random House Group, one of the largest general book publishers in the UK. She is also a Non-Executive Director of BSkyB.

Basically she’s a propagandist.

The Deputy Director is Abigail Moss, who “supports all aspects of the NLT’s work and its contribution to social justice and growth.” Social justice and growth?

Policy adviser George Dugdale says, “I investigate how literacy transforms lives.” Or how scaring children will make the more obedient and prepared for the creeping fascist state.

The list goes on and on. They even have celebrity supporters, one being Singer/ songwriter and star judge on BBC’s Strictly Come Dancing, Alicia Dixon, photoed reading a book about Obama.

How about you read the one by Webster Tarpley?

Of course, all of this information doesn’t necessarily highlight what the agenda is and why it is taking place. But you can at least see how obscure people with nonsensical career-titles and links to big business have a say on your child’s education. Can any old charity claiming to be FOR literacy gain power over the school curriculum? I certainly hope not!

Mock Crime Scene

The second and possibly more shocking scenario is the mock crime scene, where pupils are lead to believe that there has been some kind of assault or crime committed at the school. They are then tasked to help the police solve the crime.

The publicized incident came from the Foxhill primary school in Sheffield, where they pretended a teacher had been assaulted (she wore a bandage) and set up a fake crime scene with drops of blood. No parents were informed and it took 4 days for the truth to fully out, that it was a staged event.

Nicola Shipman (no relation to Harold), headteacher at Foxhill, admitted that parents and pupils were kept in the dark to make the event more realistic.

“To make it more convincing South Yorkshire Police forensic officers went to the school and took the fingerprints of some of the children and a police officer spoke to the children about it.”
[I missed this in the original article...this is deeply worrying; getting children accustomed to finger printing?]

I can’t at this time find out where the actual scenario was dictated from, but it follows the same pattern.

“The problem solving week was held to cover key skills in the school curriculum from creative writing through to science, numeracy and analysis. We wanted to give the pupils a topic that would inspire their creativity and their imaginations which is why the crime scene was chosen. This was also done to raise pupils’ aspirations and to reinforce a positive view of the police and the work they do in the community.”

Brainwashing then.

Holocaust Simulation

The third traumatic scenario is the holocaust simulation where children are told that they are to be taken away from their families and might end up in an orphanage. This of course is to teach them about the holocaust.

Again like the mock crime scene it is unsure where the idea to do this came from, although the immediate blame is being placed on Deputy Headmistress of St Hilary’s Primary School in East Kilbride, Elizabeth McGlynn, who took the class when the “role playing” took place.

It was again to help with creative writing. As one parent said, “My position and opinion on the method used to extract emotive story writing from the children was cruel, barbaric, traumatic and totally, totally unethical.”

A South Lanarkshire council spokeswoman, who confirmed that a role play activity took place, said, “The council can confirm that a parent handed in a letter to Education Resources on Monday, March 8, 2010,” although it appears nothing has been done.

Conclusion

Other than the staged alien invasions that have documented ties to the National Literacy Trust charity, the roots of the other two scenarios are not clear. The common theme is that the exercises are to get children creative in their writing, however one has to ask why the events weren’t acted out as a performance from the beginning? Children don’t need to think something is real to get their imagination going.

What we might be seeing (whether deliberate or accidental) in the first two scenarios is a trauma based psychological process, to cement authority figures within the children’s minds. Some might call this trauma based mind control or predictive programming.

Having been initially traumatized by a situation they have never encountered before, the children’s brains are taking an imprint of how it all unfolded, which they’ll subconsciously go back to should a similar situation occur in real life.

In the boundaries of the experiment, the only people they can look to for guidance and safety are the teachers and the policemen; not their parents. In this state of fear, although upset, they have no choice but to go along with the authoritarian solutions given to them by their authority figures. Thus when in the mock crime scene scenario they happily hand over their little hands to be fingerprinted, despite them clearly not being suspects.

This teaches them to be subservient later on in life.

That’s my interpretation, but the shocking holocaust simulation has its roots in a real 1960s experiment by a teacher called Jane Elliott, who wanted to teach her class about racism.

She told her pupils a pseudo-scientific explanation of how eye colour defined people: blue eyes showed people who were cleverer, quicker, more likely to succeed. They were superior to people with brown eyes, who were described untrustworthy, lazy and stupid. She then divided the class according to who had brown eyes and who had blue eyes. To ensure clarity of divisions – given that some eye colours might be subject to dispute, she used ribbons to mark out the ‘inferior’ brown-eyed children (those with clearly different eye colours acted as bystanders). To reinforce the situation, she gave the superior group extra classroom privileges, and would not let the brown-eyed children drink from the same water fountain. She made a point of praising the blue-eyed children, and being more negative to the browns.

Jane Elliott was amazed at the speedy transformation in her class. The superior blue-eyed children became arrogant, and were bossy and unpleasant to their brown-eyed class mates. The brown eyes quickly became cowed and timid, even those that had previously dominated the class. But what really astounded Jane was the difference academically. Blue-eyed children improved their grades, and managed mathematical and reading tasks that had proved out of their grasp before. Brown-eyed high-flyers stumbled over simple questions.

According to Wikipedia: Jane Elliott is considered to be the “foremother” of diversity training, with the blue-eyed/brown-eyed scenario as the basis of much of what is called diversity training. She has done such training for corporations like General Electric, Exxon, AT&T, and IBM, as well as lectured to the FBI, IRS, US Navy, US Dept of Education and US Postal Service.

Where is all of this headed? It’s not clear, but at least now we can keep a critical eye on this progression in to shock and emotion based learning, and how it seems to have sprung up at the behest of private organizations like the NLT, without the input of parents.