,
17 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
*Who* is telling these children that they are going to die in 12 years time?
Why is that belief not being challenged by schools, teachers, news media, politicians and campaigning organisations? Why are they instead promoting it?
newstatesman.com/2019/03/i-coul…
Why is that belief not being challenged by schools, teachers, news media, politicians and campaigning organisations? Why are they instead promoting it?
newstatesman.com/2019/03/i-coul…
Here's a clue...
Those children do not seem old enough even to read.
Yet here is a "scientist" teaching them about climate change. And the school is proudly showing that this is how it treats children.
Tell me that there's anything good about that.
Yet here is a "scientist" teaching them about climate change. And the school is proudly showing that this is how it treats children.
Tell me that there's anything good about that.
How is it different to 'teach' infants about climate change, compared to 'teaching' them about, some fundamentalist interpretation of religion, or political ideology.
I don't see the difference.
I don't see the difference.
We know that there's no difference, because we know than in just a few years, those children are likely to take what they have been 'taught' -- that they will die in 12 years -- onto the streets, to demand radical political action.
If you do not believe that children are being weaponised against their parents and grandparents, you are deeply naive. They are being 'taught' a radical perspective on the world.
That perspective is *categorically* political. It is being 'taught' to children as young as 4.
This is what academic psychologists say:
"The recommendation therefore is to include children in public education campaigns for increasing awareness of climate change. Children serve the cue of vulnerability and trigger the need for caring and protection. ...."
"The recommendation therefore is to include children in public education campaigns for increasing awareness of climate change. Children serve the cue of vulnerability and trigger the need for caring and protection. ...."
"... In doing so, intergenerational unfairness could also be conveyed—the truism that irreversible harm is imposed by us on future generations (who have not harmed us in any way)."
Another study said, "Because values are unlikely to change after adolescence (Inglehart, 1977, 1997) and no education is value-free (e.g., Gudmundsdottir, 1990), we believe that in the future values should be more openly considered as part of the education of children...".
This is the book that @emilyshuckburgh wrote for children.
It is full of false, and widely debunked claims.
That didn't stop the publisher. And it didn't stop people using it to terrify children.
It is full of false, and widely debunked claims.
That didn't stop the publisher. And it didn't stop people using it to terrify children.
Well, what about the Ladybird version of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book? Why not the Ladybird Book of Ayatollah Khomeini? The Ladybird Book of Ba'athism?
What's the difference?
Why does environmentalism not get seen as 'ideology'?
@ladybirdbooks
What's the difference?
Why does environmentalism not get seen as 'ideology'?
@ladybirdbooks
If it is *not* the case that environmentalism is a radical and weird ideology...
Why is it necessary to inculcate green values in four year olds? Why is it necessary to make children believe that they will not see past their twenties?
Why is it necessary to inculcate green values in four year olds? Why is it necessary to make children believe that they will not see past their twenties?
If you do not believe that children growing up believing that they have no future is *extremely* detrimental to their well-being their prospects and damaging to society, you are lacking some basics.
*That* is what is being taught. In schools.
*That* is what is being taught. In schools.
So *why* would people want children to form that view of their future?
Either they have failed to think through the consequences.
Or, they believe that young people will be more obedient to a political doctrine.
Is there a third reason?
Either they have failed to think through the consequences.
Or, they believe that young people will be more obedient to a political doctrine.
Is there a third reason?
Here's another clue. The moral bankruptcy begins right at the top of politics. Here are MPs, giving their support to the ideologically-driven protest, to capitalise on the youth's nihilism.
Shame on you, @michaelgove
