Decalogue of “Education for Citizenship”

1. This text aims to contribute to the debate surrounding Citizenship Education (hereinafter EfC) and, based on it, reflect on the type of school, family, and society in which we live (or believe we live...). EfC, to be implemented from preschool through secondary education, addresses several themes that cut across all areas of society, and its main focus is Human Rights (hereinafter HR); namely: education for development; environmental education and sustainable development; road safety education; financial education; education for gender equality; intercultural education; education for HR, volunteering; education for health and sexuality, and others. These themes should be addressed in all disciplines and subject areas, in activities and projects developed by schools and, also, in collaboration with organizations, public institutions, and other civil society partners whose relevance in addressing the different dimensions of citizenship is considered valid and desirable.

2. From this initial approach, we can immediately ask ourselves how it is that, in a disciplinary field that aims to encompass all dimensions of the human being, there is no reference, in its extensive list of priorities and thematic areas, to God (or divinity), the supernatural and transcendence , the decisive importance of religious traditions in human life, or even religious freedom. Religion has always been considered one of the central cores of human rights* and a fundamental anthropological premise; to remove it from human experience is to amputate one of Man's most constitutive and structuring dimensions. Was this an oversight? Obviously not! The family, with all its flaws and limitations, is nevertheless the institution that has always been the pillar that gives cohesion, consistency, and stability to human communities. How can one understand the lack of any kind of approach to the topic of the family? (*It should be remembered that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed in 1948, following the atrocities committed during World War II, and its main intention was precisely to create a legal instrument that would prevent future violations of human dignity and, furthermore, to prevent Legal Relativism from altering and reinterpreting said Human Rights, depending on the governments of the day and their particular and circumstantial interests. Unfortunately, and contrary to the institutions and initial intentions of its proponents (Eleanor Roosevelt, and others), it is precisely political alternations and parliamentary arithmetic that currently define which rights should be recognized and promoted, and which should lose relevance.

3. This disciplinary area, in keeping with the comprehensive, multidimensional, and integral nature with which it assumes and defines itself, presupposes "an integrative vision of the various areas of knowledge, which permeates all educational practice." Of course, the individual who attends school must, through this "integrative vision...", acquire tools and skills to, to the best of their ability, construct their own biography, understand and intervene in the world around them, make political and humanitarian choices, and make free and responsible personal decisions. And school contributes greatly to this; and rightly so! Another, quite different thing, is a school that, in addition to the valuable contribution mentioned above, overrides an illegitimate intention of "constructing" a certain model of society, of human beings, of family, of sexuality, and even of language. UNESCO itself argues that the purpose of education "cannot be an elitist intellectualism that privileges the academic; it must, on the contrary, aim at social development." And "Social development" means the construction of a certain type of society, of a certain type of person, who perceives the world in a certain way, behaves in a certain way, according to certain norms and standards (as written in their documents). It's one thing for any democratically elected government to legitimately promote its educational model through norms, precepts, and laws; it's quite another to impose an ideology through education. In the first case, education is the objective (and while it may be open to criticism, it is legitimate); in the second, it is a means to an end (in this case, illegitimate). This is not the function of schools; their primary function has always been, and must remain, the promotion and transmission of knowledge.

4. This civilizational model, this vision of society, of the world, even of humanity, imported from international agendas and underlying the construction of the EfC, is based on a materialistic anthropology of the Human Being and is therefore reductive, partial, and incomplete. The physical, psychological, and spiritual dimensions of humanity are interdependent and must be considered in an integrated, not separate, manner; therefore, not just the physical or psychological dimension. This materialistic approach is being implemented in schools, universities, culture, the media, politics, the arts, sports… without people realizing they are being induced. UNESCO's own educators resort to an effective strategy of "attitude modification," that is, changing behaviors surreptitiously, without people realizing they are being "led." All of this is clear in its documents, articles, and manuals, configuring a kind of horizontal "state religion," where there's much talk of ethics, human rights, sustainable development, gender, sexual education, reproductive rights, intercultural education, financial education... while removing God from the equation. It's clear that the long-term success of this process depends on the contribution of schools and education; as Leibniz stated, "the owner of education is the owner of the world." Thus, schools emerge as a privileged (and highly effective) space for shaping and shaping minds, wills, conduct, and behaviors from an early age. Children are the future adults, the future rulers, the future political decision-makers.

5. And what is the role of the family institution in this entire process? Unfortunately, the family has been undergoing a process of systematic degradation and is now a fragmented, unstructured, and resigned institution, incapable of assuming the educational responsibilities it has traditionally considered its own. Not out of mere irresponsibility or lack of love for its children, but simply because it feels powerless, incapable of performing the difficult and increasingly complex task of educating! And this difficulty extends to the teachers themselves (who are also parents) and to the school itself, increasingly a repository of insecure, aggressive children, without rules, without limits, without reference points, without projects, without a future, and "without parents," supposedly the first educators. Increasingly, as a consequence of the profound, unprecedented anthropological crisis that characterizes our time (what is man?, what is woman?, what is good?, what is evil, right, wrong, beauty, truth?, what is a good person?, what is a human being?...), families feel completely powerless to educate (no matter how much love and affection they give). And faced with this impotence in the face of the challenges and demands of today's world, faced with this lack of clarity and inability to educate their children; faced with the void created... the school, increasingly, tends to become a substitute for the family itself. And it is in this context that the school, through its curriculum, becomes more relevant and more necessary. Since parents are unable to educate their children; as violence and indiscipline grow among children, adolescents, and young people, as the intergenerational gap widens, as chaos sets in… the State appears to offer, based on legislation, a public morality and ethics that ultimately govern human relations. And “this is the essence of the problem of the EpC, that is, the expropriation, by the State, of the family's competence to educate the moral conscience of its children.” Now, when the State tends to be a source of almost absolute legitimacy, the legal becomes equivalent to the moral, the true, the good, the beautiful. And it is in this context that the individual “lowers” to the status of “Citizen,” and everything that makes them much more than a mere citizen (their personal, intimate life, their private sphere) tends to disappear, tends to be abolished. As everything tends to be political and, therefore, public; everything tends to be regulated by the State. Does the State have the legitimacy to define what constitutes a good and bad citizen? What are progress and prejudice? What is freedom and how should it be lived? What are truth and lies; what are man and woman? Why must we accept the State invading the most intimate part of a person, their conscience? This constitutes a framework of fraudulent and intolerable political, ideological, and religious indoctrination. This constitutes an education based on a kind of purification of children, their minds, and wills; it constitutes something equivalent to the confessional education of the past. (In other disciplines, such as history or philosophy, we teach how to think, not what to think. And although the teaching of history, for example, is not free from the inevitable approach to "values," its central objective is not to instill values.)

6. Large global organizations; the UN at the forefront, but also UNESCO, WHO, OECD, OAS, and other institutions, other bodies, other powers... "sponsors" are, then, the agents inspiring and promoting this new "global order" (for example, Planned Parenthood, the world's largest organization promoting abortion, has been granted consultative body status, acquiring a kind of access credential to the UN and its meetings since 1970, enjoying the advantages and possibilities that opened up by joining an organization like the UN, from which it could disseminate and promote its abortion agenda on a global scale (193 UN countries and 35 OAS countries). The intention to influence and impose, on a global scale, a set of new values, a new human anthropology, a new society, a "new" civilization is abundantly documented. The great inspiring (and guiding) document for all these projects is the "2030 Agenda," that is, an entire program of objectives, goals, strategies, proposals, methodologies, with a global impact on the lives of peoples, countries, cultures, communities, families, and ordinary people. This A2030 is embodied in a set of 17 "macro" objectives, all conceived, designed, and projected in 2015 within the UN; these objectives are based on three major guiding principles: Sustainable Development, Social Justice, and Ecology. The development of this A2030 went through several phases, particularly the precursor process, called the "8 millennium goals." In other words, before the 17 A2030 objectives were established, eight major general objectives had already been defined in 2000. The idea then was that these would be achieved by 2015. After many negotiations, delays, and unmet objectives, the eight millennium goals were then moved to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of A2030. They advocated, Some delegations pertinently stated that if the "8 Millennium Development Goals" were not achieved, what's the point of increasing the commitment to 17 goals plus 169 corresponding intermediate targets? (Strange, to say the least). These 17 macro-goals, in turn, culminate in a set of 169 targets, which serve as preliminary stages that, once completed, will ultimately lead to the achievement of the respective main objectives. When we realize the scope of the 2030 Agenda, we realize that we are dealing with something whose nature transcends the merely regional or national and that we are, therefore, facing events and changes on a global scale.

7. An extremely important "tool," crucial in controlling public opinion and advancing this complex and labyrinthine A2030, is the so-called "Language Manipulation," through which people's perceptions and behavior regarding the substance, content, and very concepts that underpin the various objectives and goals to be achieved are distorted and altered. We no longer talk about child and maternal health; we now talk about general health and well-being; we no longer talk about education in general; we talk about an education where gender ideology is a constant theme; we no longer talk about equality between men and women; we now talk about gender equality. In 1994, at the Population and Development Conference in Cairo, we began to talk about sexual rights and sexual and reproductive health. Some countries objected, as these were unfamiliar, ambiguous, and biased expressions not covered by international law. There were agreements, treaties, clauses, and contracts already signed, and they legitimately did not want to be bound by obligations regarding something that was not clearly, explicitly, and transparently stated. Even so, gradually, more or less forcedly, and through "negotiation," everything ended up being accepted and standardized, thus imposing an agenda with certain particular interests, more or less perceptible, more or less logical and rational. And why isn't all this a mere matter of semantics? Because from this point on, at the 1994 Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, the supposed new human rights (the aforementioned "new interpretation of human rights") began to be created. A year later, in 1995, at the Conference on Women in Beijing, the word "gender" was introduced. Once again, no one knew what it was, there was no definition of the concept, but even so, for the reasons mentioned above, it stuck. And here's how it all works: the two terms, "sex" and "gender," are initially used interchangeably, as if they were equivalent and synonymous; then, when everyone has become accustomed to using the word "gender," the new meaning of "socially constructed sex" is imperceptibly added, as a counterpoint to biological sex. Finally, after a few years, the whole society naturally begins to speak of gender as a self-construction unrelated to sexuality itself; even though, as we well know, this is impossible. Eventually, everything becomes standardized, agreed-upon, conventional language, becoming part of international documents, and therefore, national documents, manuals, legislation, and institutions (schools and others). Another recurring strategy is the use of "talismanic words"; that is, words that immediately legitimize all other terms associated with them; for example, the word "freedom": abortion advocates, for example, readily define themselves as defenders of "freedom of choice"; now, who could be against freedom of choice? No one! The term "IVG" is also, in this context, another classic of the great contemporary lie: an interruption is something that can be resumed, that is not the case; or the use of expressions like "reproductive rights," meaning abortion; or "dignified death," meaning euthanasia. All this new, falsifying language is slowly infiltrating people's collective imagination and imposing an agenda with specific ideological, cultural, economic, and demographic interests, more or less explicit, more or less perceptible (and more or less negotiated). Ultimately, all of this has a dramatic desensitizing and numbing effect on consciences, contributing decisively to the creation of the idea that practices like abortion or euthanasia are not, after all, so reprehensible, so blameworthy, so condemnable. It's a deception, an illusion, a lie! Most people, groups and institutions, and even schools themselves will certainly act in good faith... but the process of "social engineering" is so imperceptible and discreet that it slowly infiltrates people's collective imagination.

8. As jurist Neidi Casillhas, an expert in International Law, consultant to the UN and the OAS (Organization of American States), and therefore present at many of these meetings, states in an interview (with regard to the manipulation of language and "new" expressions): "This is not correct; it is completely illegal, as it violates the sovereignty and will of countries when they signed these treaties." The jurist continues, stating that: "all the battles we are facing in our countries— whether it's called Abortion, Euthanasia, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Sex Education for Children… all of this was thought out and 'cooked up' in these organizations." This is how this entire agenda has been developed and implemented in countries (with Education being one of the priority vehicles). This parallels the major proposals and general objectives of A2030, which are desirable for any reasonable person. (combating hunger and poverty, combating inequality and injustice, protecting nature, caring for human life…), there is also another political and ideological agenda (and therefore as reprehensible as any other), to which no one can be forced to submit. And are there sanctions for those who transgress? There are worrying signs, particularly regarding economic aid to the poorest countries, which is dependent on acceptance and adherence to the new values. In other words, if the poorest countries want to benefit from support and aid, they will have to implement the values of the new millennium (issues such as abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, family, education…). Otherwise, they are excluded from the financial system, which, in practice, represents the slow death of a country.

9. Why is this global project, to which the school seeks to decisively contribute, reductive, partial, and incomplete? Because the realities that now matter are only political and material realities; God is a mere illusion and, allegedly, a generator of conflict between individuals and peoples. Hiroshi Nakajima, former Director-General of the UN, himself said in 1992 that "Judeo-Christian ethics cannot be applied in the future." This new order requires a new "Citizenship," where "believers" are replaced by "citizens." Why does the School believe it is legitimate to impose a certain "worldview" based on relativism, individualism, materialism, and the dehumanization and desacralization of human life on a society that, by its very nature, is complex, diverse, and plural? Why does the School believe it is legitimate to disseminate and impose (or at least normalize) something like Gender Ideology, Abortion, Euthanasia, Artificial Insemination, In Vitro Fertilization, Transgenderism, Freedom Without Truth, etc.? Why must we accept this global contagion, based on a new interpretation of Human Rights? The power of these subtle, imperceptible, and effective processes of "colonization of consciousness" over the minds of children and adults is widely documented, and is considered by many to be "the most extensive brain control ever attempted in history, with an extremely high degree of success."

10. Finally, we can all agree that to say, in absolute terms, that school teaches and family educates is "lyricism," unrealistic; it has no basis in reality. Of course, it would also be unrealistic and unfeasible to precisely delimit what is discussed at school and what is discussed at home; of course, in many families, there are topics that are not addressed; of course, there are many children from completely dysfunctional families who benefit from the role of the state, and thankfully so. However, we are born and raised in a community context, characterized by more or less close human relationships. Family, family friends, neighbors, acquaintances, schoolmates, teachers, the educational community, the mailman, the grocer, the Uber Eats driver (the catechist, the priest, the scout leader... possibly), and through all of them, we inherit horizons, references, examples, testimonies (for better or for worse). Schools obviously play an important role in this regard, but it is the family that must provide permanent and irreplaceable education. Since education is the fundamental core of social life, delegating this responsibility to a sort of "educating state" (version 2) is already proven to yield poor results. It is up to parents, in their increasingly heroic mission of educating, to be present, always present, ever more present... and to deconstruct the deconstructions, reinterpret the reinterpretations, and re-educate the re-educations. Good luck!